Question about the original 11' USS Enterprise

Seriously, this whole Christmas tree light business is frying my noodle.

If you'd told anybody in the UK that you'd used a set of Christmas tree lights to accomplish something in the 1960s, they would have known exactly what you meant. The only variation was the colour of the bulbs and the style of the little plastic decorative cup at the base of the bulb.

I'm slowly working my way though https://oldchristmastreelights.com/table_of_contents.htm

swhite228, "Merry Miniatures" or "Merry Midgets"? I get lots of Google hits for "merry miniatures Christmas tree lights" but none of them seem to specifically refer to a particular type of light, and most of them are primarily about Hallark "Merry Miniatures" decorations. "Merry Midgets", on the other hand, were GE lights wired "on a loop" which I presume means in series. I found some sets of Merry midgets that include a red tip flasher bulb, but it clearly states on the packaging that the lights either all burn steadily or all flash, as you'd expect with a series wired set.
 
Seriously, this whole Christmas tree light business is frying my noodle.

If you'd told anybody in the UK that you'd used a set of Christmas tree lights to accomplish something in the 1960s, they would have known exactly what you meant. The only variation was the colour of the bulbs and the style of the little plastic decorative cup at the base of the bulb.

I'm slowly working my way though https://oldchristmastreelights.com/table_of_contents.htm

swhite228, "Merry Miniatures" or "Merry Midgets"? I get lots of Google hits for "merry miniatures Christmas tree lights" but none of them seem to specifically refer to a particular type of light, and most of them are primarily about Hallark "Merry Miniatures" decorations. "Merry Midgets", on the other hand, were GE lights wired "on a loop" which I presume means in series. I found some sets of Merry midgets that include a red tip flasher bulb, but it clearly states on the packaging that the lights either all burn steadily or all flash, as you'd expect with a series wired set.

Stop thinking that the lights remained in the configuration they were sold in. If you take a set of the lights and you separate the bulbs and sockets you will end up with 1 bulb, 1 socket, and 2 lead wires. This is what they did for the Enterprise. The sockets were taped to screws or left loose over the mirror pieces which gives the effect of large and small bulbs. The wires were divided into two groups 1 wire from each socket in each group and those two wire groups were wired to the transformer, making the circuit parallel at that point, and allowing the flashing bulbs to flash with the others to remain on.
Remember the lighting on the original model was a quick and dirty job. There was no flashing circuit to drive the lights, just the flasher bulbs. The model was a mixture of incandescent bulb sizes and voltages .

You are correct the bulbs were "Marry Midgets" made by GE. The "red" top clear bulbs were blinkers made with a strip of BiMetal that opened and closed the circuit a it heated and cooled. As sold the bulbs were wired in series (loop) and the flasher bulb would flash the whole strand. The red tip was standard, but GE did make colored flashers available in some sets at the request of it's customers. The bubs were clear when made then dipped in colored dye that would as the bulbs aged flake off. In most cases the colored flasher bulbs had the red top that could be seen after it was dipped to make the colored flasher.
 
Stop thinking that the lights remained in the configuration they were sold in.

The reason that I want that to be the case is because that's what it's natural to assume by interpreting Richard Datin's words exactly.

If you read the Datin book, he repeatedly remarks on incorrect information that he's heard passed around, and his description of the modification work that he performed is quite detailed and specific. On topics where he doesn't have a clear recollection or paperwork to remind him, he says so. So I'm kind of starting from the assumption that if Richard Datin says he did something, he did.

He doesn't make any mention of constructing a new wire harness, he just says "a set of miniature Christmas tree-type lights were attached". As you yourself have remarked, it was a "quick and dirty job". Much less work to just take a string of Merry Midget bulbs (which are basically the same as the UK lights that I'd originally imagined were used) and use them as they are than to cut them all up and reconnect them. Bear in mind that the effect that Datin was after (which, in my opinion, he didn't really achieve) was to make it look as if the lights were spinning, not blinking:

"...and when powered, achieved the 'spinning lights' effect under the frosted but translucent, Plexiglass surface. The lights remained stationary while an off-camera stage technician controlled the speed of the rotating slotted dome..."

This is not to say that somebody else didn't replace the lights (in all probability, the lights were replaced, since Datin says that he used white or clear lights, but they might have installed a whole new custom rig, or they might have just changed out the bulbs.

I've taken a look at the Metamorphosis clip from the blu-ray, and it's not that dissimilar to the clips in the Doug Drexler video. The stills and GIF that feek61 has posted have a lot of sharpening on them, which changes the appearance of the "vanes" quite a bit. I'm still not convinced that they're proof of blinking lights.

Here are a couple of renders that I've made. This first one shows how a metal disc with narrow slots can appear to be a set of narrow vanes when it's rotated in front of a light and filmed with a movie camera. What it doesn't show is the slight "bending" that feek61 mentioned, which I believe is an artifact caused by the camera shutter - the way movie camera shutters work, they do exhibit a very mild version of the "rolling shutter" effect that makes helicopter blades look totally wacky when filmed with a CMOS sensor camera.

Here I've spun the disc up to pretty close to the maximum speed that it can spin at and still show "vanes". If you go much faster, you get bright bands where the slots have rotated far enough around to overlap the next slot. I've put a little red flag on the edge of the dome to indicate the speed that the dome is actually spinning at. When the dome gets up to full speed, what's actually a metal dome with narrow slots rotating clockwise fairly fast appears to be a set of narrow vanes rotating much more slowly in the opposite direction. The speed that it's rotating at at about the two and a half second mark is more like the effect usually seen on the show - wider vanes rotating slowly in the same direction as the disk is spinning.

http://i.imgur.com/lymnFt4.gif

This next one is done with computer tricks, I admit. Because this stuff takes so long to render, I pre-rendered an opacity map for the dome to simulate the spinning slots, and I used a post-render gaussian blur to simulate the diffusion from the sandblasted domes. It still basically shows exactly the same thing that you'd see if I'd accurately simulated those aspects. These are all little lights that remain steadily lit, they just appear to blink as the slots whizzz past them. Notice how the red light nearest the bottom corner appears completely steady. Viewed from a different angle, it would start to blink, and some of the other lights might appear steadily lit.

All this shows is a bunch of lights with a black slotted dome spinning in front of them. The real effect is considerably more complex still, with the diffusion from the outer dome, the reflections from the mirror shards which will each also have their own distinct "blinking" pattern, and possibly reflections from the inside of the aluminium dome as well:

http://i.imgur.com/zBSss7q.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice job on the renders and I appreciate the work you are putting in this but In the end you believe what you want; photographic proof doesn't appear to convince you. Not to be harsh but you asked for evidence and much has been provided but you discount or explain it away in order to push forward your (wrong) theory that there were no blinking lights and only thin slots in the solid (aluminum) hemisphere. The photo from 1972 of the nacelles lights and fan off clearly shows the small fan blades and the .GIF I posted was not "sharpened" in any way unless you consider zooming into a specific area sharpening. The extensive work and research done by the restoration team which has thin fan blades and blinking lights to replicate the original effect is totally ignored by you.

On the Blu-Ray release of "The Vault Series" there are a number of film tests of the miniature with different configurations of the nacelles. One of the film test is without the spinning fans; just the blinking lights. Along with the obvious proof I have previous posted of the flashing lights; here are yet more photos of the blinking lights sans the fans (direct caps; not "sharpened" or zoomed or any other enhancement). In the photos below you can see that the lights are indeed colored but the studio re-worked the nacelle effect to several different configurations after the miniature was delivered. This particular test was done early into the production of the series on 6/03/66. FWIW, I have read Datin's (daughter's) book and there are many errors in it. She interviewed him later in his life for the book and he was recalling what he had done 35 years previously so what is written is interesting and informative but not exactly accurate in some cases. There were absolutely blinking lights and the fan blades were thinner than the open spaces; you are trying to prove something that is not correct in both cases. If you discount the photos posted here am not sure how much more evidence can be produced. I appreciate your dedication but there is a point if you are reasonable and trying to find the truth where you have to admit and agree that your theory is wrong.

For what it is worth, I don't believe Datin's recollections of the nacelle effect and his involvement. If he delivered the model with the effect as we know it; why would the studio try different less impressive configurations? There were many film tests including a cloudy inner dome that spun, pulsating white lights, the colored blinking lights and finally the colored blinking lights with the spinning fan. Looking at the dates when the effects were filmed; the effect as we know it was the last to be filmed with the plain white lights being filmed weeks before. If Datin had delivered this effect (with the spinning fan) it seems that this would have been the first filmed. Why would the studio disassemble this brilliant effect (without film tests) and change it to just pulsating white lights which obviously were not going to be as impressive as the effect that was delivered only to change them back weeks later to the effect Datin delivered? It doesn't make any sense which is why I think that Datin is misremembering what he did on the nacelle lighting. Based on the dates and the effects that were filmed, I think Datin delivered the miniature with white lights and then the studio spent weeks changing and improving the effect to what was eventually seen on screen.



















 
Last edited:
I don't want to get into a fight about this, but photographic proof certainly does convince me.

The second render that I posted specifically addresses the point that just because a movie appears to show blinking lights, that, by itself, isn't proof that the lights were actually blinking.

We can all see that the effect looks like aset of vanes rotating around a set of blinking lights, but it's kind of the whole point of "special effects" photography that what appears on screen isn't what was actually happening. In SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, it looks like Christopher Reeve can fly. In JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS, it looks like Todd Armstrong fights off a bunch of skeletons grown from dragon's teeth. What actually happened on the soundstages was completely different from what appeared on screen.

As I said earlier, in three of the four Golden West photos that I've seen, the lights in the domes certainly appear to be unlit, but why assume that that means that the motors also weren't running? Those photographs are photographic proof that whatever exactly is inside the outer domes is visible even when the lights are off. If the lights were off because they were having some problem with them, it doesn't automatically follow that they would also have turned the motors off while the model was on display, because the spinning innards would still be a visible part of the display.

If the motors were running, ambient light would shine in through the outer domes, reflect off the mirror shards, and shine back out through the inner domes like the light from the bulbs, and the apparent shape of the "vanes" would be largely the same as it is with the lights on.

It's not like I'm digging my heels in and refusing to acknowledge the obvious in the face of overwhelming evidence. Plenty of people have tried to replicate the effect seen on screen; few, if any, have entirely succeeded. I'm pretty sure that I've either seen a video, or read an interview, in which Malcolm Collum, who's a pretty smart guy from what I've seen, explicitly stated that they couldn't precisely replicate the original effect on the model as seen in person, because the movie camera shutter is a crucial part of the equation.

As I've said, I was completely ignorant of the fact that in the US, "Christmas tree-type lights" could refer to any one of dozens of different contraptions. Having learned more about that I feel stupid for not considering the fact that US Christmas tree lights might not have been the same as the kind that we had here.

I'm entirely open to the idea that there may have been blinking lights, but I want to see evidence that clearly shows that it was actually the bulbs blinking rather than something else (like the render that I posted) going on.I'm not trying to prove that that the bulbs didn't blink, I'm trying to establish, to my own satisfaction, whether they did or not. If the shots shown on the show were conclusive evidence that they did, I wouldn't have had any reason to doubt it in the first place.

This "Vault Series" blu-ray, is that this?:

https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Original-Roddenberry-Blu-ray/dp/B01LFUORW0

I know a Trekkie who will almost certainly have a copy of that. I'll see if I can borrow it. I notice that "Metamorphosis" is on there; is that where your grabs came from? If so, it could explain why your grabs are more sharpened than the series blu-ray footage.

This is the theory that I currently have: Richard Datin, who designed and built the original effect, specifically referred to it as a "spinning light" effect. If you built the gizmo that he described, with a solid inner dome with slots cut into it, and a set of lights and mirrors inside, when you spun the inner dome, bands of light would appear to be spinning around the outer dome, with the appearance of each band changing as the spatial relationships between each of the bulbs and the slots changed. Spinning the dome faster would eventually merge the bands together, in the same way that a plane's propeller blades eventually look like a transparent disc when they spin fast enough, giving the effect of scintillating lights whirling around the surface of the dome.

If the inner dome that Richard Datin made had had narrow vanes with wide open spaces between them, it wouldn't have produced this effect.

Seen with the naked eye, this was probably quite an impressive effect. However, filmed with a movie camera, the effect wouldn't really work. A movie camera (running at normal speed, with a normal shutter angle) records everything that happens in 1/48th of a second, none of what happens in the following 1/48th of a second, then everything that happens in the following 1/48th and so on. Then when the movie is played, each of those little 1/48th of a second slices of time are presented all at once so that all of the movement that would have been visible to the naked eye during each individual 48th of a second is lost.

The effect on film would essentially resemble the first render that I posted, but with all of the individual lights showing through the dome rather than just the plain white illuminated background in my render.

At the time when he started working on Star Trek, Richard Datin had made a few models for various movies, but he wasn't actually officially working in the movie business because he didn't have a union card. He was a model maker by trade, not an effects technician. He probably wasn't fully aware of the way that filming the device that he designed would change its appearance.

Possibly, when they filmed the effect, they realized that it was a bit "meh" looking on film, so they put in the coloured bulbs (which may or may not have blinked) to spice it up a bit, and it's possible that some bright individual figured out that since the slotted dome didn't really work as intended, you could achieve the same effect by replacing it with the transparent domes with black stripes that Jeff Szazly describes in the Starlog article. I think, for this to be the case, though, given the tight budget, there'd need to be a compelling reason for doing it.
 
Last edited:
The photos I posted above are FROM A FILM THAT YOU CAN WATCH THE FLASHING LIGHTS HAPPENING WITHOUT THE SPINNING FANS!!!. How do you explain that the lights are easily seen as blinking but actually are not? Do you want me to believe that the shutter alone causes some lights in the nacelle to randomly blink while others never waiver in brightness or intensity? Poppycock!

There is no logical reason for the studio to remove Datin's effect to replace it with this unimpressive effect (which is from film on 5/25/66 more than a week before those I posted above):




Or this pulsating white light (which I suspect is Datin's original effect before the studio created the final effect):



I don't believe that Datin installed the broken mirrors either which I believe he confirmed in the Communicator issue (which I would have to dig up to remember specifically what he said). Remember, the Datin book was written by his daughter from interviews she did with her dad almost 20 years earlier which was 35 years after he worked on the miniature. She obviously loves and is proud of her dad but there are many things in the book that are just plain wrong. I find the thought absurd that Datin delivered the miniature with the effect that we know (but with only white or clear lighting) only to have the studio completely change it to some really basic "flashing white light" effects and then change it back to what Datin delivered. That is highly unlikely. The more plausible scenario is that Datin delivered the miniature and the nacelle effect was unremarkable. The studio then modified it and continued to work on it for several weeks filming each iteration until they came up with the effect that was eventually used. The studio most probably added the broken mirrors, colored flashing lights, spinning fan and tinted dome.

Back to the flashing lights. There is no scenario using your theory that would account for differences in brightness on the entire hemisphere. If what you say is true then even though the spinning fan and camera strobe effect were making the lights appear to blink; there would not be changes in the apparent brightness of the entire hemisphere. How do you explain the difference here?


 
Last edited:
What the Smithsonian accomplished pretty well mirrors what is seen on screen in certain visuals. Remember also, the Smithsonian has materials that no one in the public are privy to. Furthermore, those blades, and lighting effects had different rates at different times. I find this to be another pointless excursion.
 
View the first few seconds of this clip a frame at a time (pause the video and use the < and > keys to advance one frame), some of the lights can be seen to go off and two or three vanes pass over them before they come back on. Others can be clearly seen to remain lit as the vanes pass over them and do not go off.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feek, I'm sorry to be awkward, but in the clip that you say has only the blinking bulbs, I can see the spinning inner domes fairly clearly:

http://i.imgur.com/Ot7ic5B.gif

They appear to be rotating clockwise at about 60 rpm, but the Wagon Wheel effect means that they could be rotating considerably faster, in either direction (they can't actually be rotating at exactly 60 RPM, because if the camera is running at 24fps, with a 12 vane spinner, you wouldn't see rotation, you'd see a slightly flickery stationary spinner that appeared to have 24 vanes).

I think that the configuration of the model is exactly the same in that clip as it is in the next clip, with the only difference being that the camera is in motion. Obviously, if you just can't see the spinning motion (I admit that it's much less discernible than in the actual show) then there's not much I can do to persuade you that it's there.

Back to the flashing lights. There is no scenario using your theory that would account for differences in brightness on the entire hemisphere. If what you say is true then even though the spinning fan and camera strobe effect were making the lights appear to blink; there would not be changes in the apparent brightness of the entire hemisphere. How do you explain the difference here?

This seems like a slightly strange question to ask, because it seems to be back to front. With only blinking bulbs present, the illumination across the entire outer dome would always exactly match the amount of light that we can see directly coming from the bulbs, but it clearly doesn't. If you separate the video into the red, green and blue channels you can see this even more clearly.

https://i.imgur.com/BcUDpkr.gif

Every "scenario using my theory" automatically accounts for this. The constantly changing light on the surface of the outer dome is coming from lights that are on, but are obscured from direct view by the vanes of the inner dome. The amount of light reaching any given point on the surface of the dome will exhibit the same kind of blinking pattern as is seen in my second render.

robn1, the first part of that clip is the "Metamorphosis" clip that we've already looked at. The appearance of the spinners is an illusion caused by the film camera. Look closely at the starboard spinner:

https://i.imgur.com/yCKWZpL.gif

Notice how the spinner looks like a twelve legged rubber spider, lurching around at about 7RPM. What you're seeing is not the spinner itself, but the shadow cast by the spinner on the outer dome, or more specifically, those areas of the outer dome that remained shaded by the spinner for the entire duration that the film frame was exposed. Look at the six o'clock position, and notice how, as each leg approaches six o'clock, it seems to make a little leap towards six o'clock, changing the size of the gaps between the two legs that are next to it. It's the same effect as when you walk past a street lamp. As you walk towards the street lamp, your shadow trails behind you. As you pass the street lamp, your shadow will suddenly swing round and appear in front of you.

The spinner isn't actually rotating at 7RPM, it's going much faster than that, but the effect of the camera shutter makes it appear that way (as I've mentioned, this is called "the Wagon Wheel effect".

Now notice how, as each of the spider legs makes its little leap, the red light that's at six o'clock flashes. The flashing isn't completely identical for each leg because you have a combination of two factors - the illusion of the leaping that's a function of the spatial relationship between the spinners and lights that they're casting shadows from, and the illusion of the slow rotation that's caused by the Wagon Wheel effect. Having noticed the relationship between the flashing red light and the leaping leg at six o'clock, pick another spot on the dome to study, and you'll see that there's always a relationship between the flashing of the lights and the lurching of the legs.

gjjackson, thanks for reporting your findings. Feel free not to participate further.
 
Watch the Hi-Res Drexler video and it is clearly defined and obvious.

Yes, look especially at the clip at 3:20 in that video. Seen frame by frame there are times where the dome light color is predominately yellow/orange, and times where it is predominately blue/green. These colors are also reflected in the upper surface of the saucer. This could not be caused by the rotating fan alone; the blades can only block the bulb from view, they could not block the light output entirely.
 
Yes, look especially at the clip at 3:20 in that video. Seen frame by frame there are times where the dome light color is predominately yellow/orange, and times where it is predominately blue/green. These colors are also reflected in the upper surface of the saucer. This could not be caused by the rotating fan alone; the blades can only block the bulb from view, they could not block the light output entirely.

This is what I was referring to; the apparent differences in brightness (and as Robn1 pointed out color) of the entire dome. The dome intensity would remain the same using your theory through out the sequence yet it does not. The other flaw to your theory is that the fan speeds were adjustable so we would be seeing different effects.






You seem to be more interested in proving your point while ignoring the obvious. Have you done a simulation with blinking lights and thin fan blades?

BTW, the first clip you linked to is NOT the clip I was referring to.

I don't think I can add anymore to this pointless discussion but I will leave you with this photo which I will be interested to hear how you explain this one away.

 
Last edited:
Considering the extent the Smithsonian went to in order to return the prop to its original state I would defer to their authority, especially since they had access to far more information and details that the public will evidently never see. I would say viewing that 200 meg video at about 5:42 also is clear indication. The purpose of the blades would make the lights seem more random and deflect away from the appearance of being X-Mas lights. On that clip the camera is stationary, for the most part, and you have about 6 seconds of film which is quite a few frames to analyze. I ran it at 0.25 fps.
 
This is what I was referring to; the apparent differences in brightness (and as Robn1 pointed out color) of the entire dome. The dome intensity would remain the same using your theory through out the sequence yet it does not. The other flaw to your theory is that the fan speeds were adjustable so we would be seeing different effects.

I can't understand why you keep asserting this. The inner domes pass in front of various light sources, either absorbing the light if the inside of the spinners is a dark, matte finish, or reflecting the light off in a different direction if its a bright metal finish. In either case, the location in space that the light would have arrived at receives no light when the solid part of the spinner passes in front of it. If the light is originating from one of the bulb filaments, and the location in space that the light would have arrived at is the camera lens, then, when its occluded by the spinner, the bulb appears to be off. If the location in space that the light would have arrived at if it were not occluded by the spinner is the surface of the outer dome, then the light from that particular bulb does not contribute to the illumination of the outer dome at that particular point, and the colour and brightness of the outer dome there will change.

BTW, the first clip you linked to is NOT the clip I was referring to.

The first GIF in my previous post is a stabilized close up from the clip on the Roddenberry Vault blu-ray disc 3 "Swept Up: Snippets from the cutting room floor" segment. It starts at the 16 minute, 13 seconds, 15 frame point and lasts for 5 seconds and 17 frames. The colour separated GIF is from the clip that immediately follows it, and lasts for 5 seconds and 4 frames. It is the clip that the two bottom stills that you posted are taken from. If neither of these clips are the shot that you claim shows blinking lights with no internal spinner, then which clip is? If either of these clips is the shot that you claim shows blinking lights with no internal spinner, then how to do account for the fact that the fluctuating light on the surface of the outer dome doesn't exactly match the blinking of the bulbs?

You seem to be more interested in proving your point while ignoring the obvious. Have you done a simulation with blinking lights and thin fan blades?

What would be the point? CBS digital have done that virtually, and the Smithsonian restoration team have done it in hardware. We already know what it looks like. It looks close to - but not exactly like - the effect that was seen on the show.

I don't think I can add anymore to this pointless discussion but I will leave you with this photo which I will be interested to hear how you explain this one away.

https://s20.postimg.org/bgucjwwzx/Front_View.jpg[/QUOTE]

Presumably, you're asking me to explain away the appearance of narrow vanes on what appears to be an unlit, static model. Firstly, you've assumed that because the model appears to be unlit, the motors must not be running. Secondly, you've assumed that because the lights on the model appear to be unlit, they are unlit. Look underneath the model and there's a huge studio light pointing almost directly at the camera, and yet many of the pixels on the fresnel aren't even white. The camera would have to be stopped down considerably to achieve that exposure. The comparatively much dimmer model lights would barely register in the photograph.

Considering the extent the Smithsonian went to in order to return the prop to its original state I would defer to their authority, especially since they had access to far more information and details that the public will evidently never see. I would say viewing that 200 meg video at about 5:42 also is clear indication. The purpose of the blades would make the lights seem more random and deflect away from the appearance of being X-Mas lights. On that clip the camera is stationary, for the most part, and you have about 6 seconds of film which is quite a few frames to analyze. I ran it at 0.25 fps.

The Smithsonian team did any extraordinarily good job, but they had to make a case to the board to be able to do a "restoration" at all, since the Smithsonian's current blanket policy is conservation (or possibly preservation - see http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/preservation-conservation-restoration-whats-the-difference/ for an explanation of the distinctions). For a time they weren't intending to put any moving parts inside the nacelles at all, but the team at ILM that were tasked with creating a static simulation of the nacelle dome effect weren't able to find a way of doing it convincingly. The device that's currently installed is designed to replicate the effect, not the mechanism by which it was originally achieved. In this video at 4:15 you can see Andy Probert (I think) trying out various slightly different inner domes to see which one most convincingly replicates the original effect:

https://vimeo.com/176999007
 
LOL, you really are grasping at straws now!! To say the black and white PHOTOGRAPH somehow has the exact blur you discuss (due to the fan speed and motion picture shudder) is absurd! The light to the far bottom RH side of the photo was to illuminate the bluescreen behind the miniature and it is obviously turned off which means they were not filming, which means the miniature lights were not on. Typically they only turned them on for a second while filming; to suggest that they just left them on for the hell of it is again, absurd. In fact, most if not all of the clapper footage does not even have the miniature lights on and that is seconds before filming is to begin! Again, looking at the B & W photo it appears to have been taken with a flash slightly above the camera judging by the shadow under the saucer and the reflection from the front of the domes and deflector dish. There is little illumination on the top of the saucer (and in fact there are shadows and back lighting visible on top) which would indicate that no stage lighting above could have caused the shadow. Besides the bottom sensor dome is partially illuminated by the flash which could not be possible with an overhead stage light. If for some reason they set up a stage light from this angle; the shadow of the photographer would have been clearly evident. If this were a filming set-up they certainly would have illuminated the bottom of the saucer which it clearly is not based on the massive shadow; something they certainly avoided.

Face it, the photo clearly shows small vanes. What are the odds that multiple still photographs show the same distortion you propose is caused by a strobe effect caused by the spinning fans and shutter of the motion picture camera? Oh, I forgot to mention different spinning rates (that still show the exact same distortion; which we both know is impossible). I will help you out: none! Your are saying the motors are spinning at extreme speed but remember Datin said these were display motors; they rotated slowly. Every shred of evidence points to blinking lights and small fan blades yet somehow you cannot accept that. Truly amazing. Sometimes a duck is just a duck.

This is just seconds before filming and obviously the lights on the miniature are off; they just did NOT leave the lighting on until the last moment before they needed to. Also, to the right you can see the bluescreen lighting light is on (the same one that is off in the B&W photo)



 
Last edited:
They had to work at "creating" the effect because of the decision to use LED's rather than flashing X-Mas lights, which produce far too much heat. Also, smaller motors were used instead of the original fan motor, as I recall. In order to get the flashing more accurate they used a controller board to flash the LED's. In the six second clip between 5:43 and 5:50 there are wild color variations from five distinct orange lights to multi-colored blue and distinct red.
 
Pretty sure that is John Goodson. More broadly, there is no shame in being wrong (I am all the time), as long as you are willing to correct your thinking when necessary.

Ha ha, yes definitely not Andy Probert. Happy to admit being wrong about that.

LOL, you really are grasping at straws now!! To say the black and white PHOTOGRAPH somehow has the exact blur you discuss (due to the fan speed and motion picture shudder) is absurd! The light to the far bottom RH side of the photo was to illuminate the bluescreen behind the miniature and it is obviously turned off which means they were not filming, which means the miniature lights were not on. Typically they only turned them on for a second while filming; to suggest that they just left them on for the hell of it is again, absurd. In fact, most if not all of the clapper footage does not even have the miniature lights on and that is seconds before filming is to begin! Again, looking at the B & W photo it appears to have been taken with a flash slightly above the camera judging by the shadow under the saucer and the reflection from the front of the domes and deflector dish. There is little illumination on the top of the saucer (and in fact there are shadows and back lighting visible on top) which would indicate that no stage lighting above could have caused the shadow. Besides the bottom sensor dome is partially illuminated by the flash which could not be possible with an overhead stage light. If for some reason they set up a stage light from this angle; the shadow of the photographer would have been clearly evident. If this were a filming set-up they certainly would have illuminated the bottom of the saucer which it clearly is not based on the massive shadow; something they certainly avoided.Face it, the photo clearly shows small vanes. What are the odds that multiple still photographs show the same distortion you propose is caused by a strobe effect caused by the spinning fans and shutter of the motion picture camera? Oh, I forgot to mention different spinning rates (that still show the exact same distortion; which we both know is impossible). I will help you out: none! Your are saying the motors are spinning at extreme speed but remember Datin said these were display motors; they rotated slowly. Every shred of evidence points to blinking lights and small fan blades yet somehow you cannot accept that. Truly amazing. Sometimes a duck is just a duck.This is just seconds before filming and obviously the lights on the miniature are off; they just did NOT leave the lighting on until the last moment before they needed to. Also, to the right you can see the bluescreen lighting light is on (the same one that is off in the B&W photo)https://s20.postimg.org/jmztymay5/20180318-172731.jpghttps://s20.postimg.org/5ulf2ncd9/20180318-173608.jpg

Yeah, I really can't understand the hostility here, to be honest. I honestly don't know what the inner domes looked like. I don't think that there's a photograph of them anywhere in existence.

If there was that would constitute proof, in my opinion.

All I've asked for is evidence, and I haven't seen any yet.

You said there was a clip on the "Vaults series" blu-ray that showed blinking lights with no spinners inside, so I went out in the snow, borrowed a blu-ray, found the only clips on it that could conceivably be interpreted as blinking lights with no spinners, stabilized one of them, converted them to GIFs and posted them on here, asserted that, to me, they pretty obviously show spinners, pointed out that in addition to the spinners being just plain visible, there are also discrepancies in the overall illumination across the outer dome which are inconsistent with the idea that they're being illuminated solely by blinking lights, and you've just responded with "oh, that's not the clip I was talking about".

So I've asked you to clarify which clip you were talking about, and instead you've just chosen to ignore that issue, and move on to a fresh picture.

Twice you've posted pictures that you suggest show that the inner spinners were clearly visible through the outer domes, and I've offered suggestions as to why that isn't actually the case, to be met with mounting scorn and derision.

Go to http://www.startrekhistory.com/models.html and scroll through the gallery of pictures of the eleven foot models till you get to the one that says "The big E stored backstage with the spare studio lights" (a bit of a slog, I know, but the guy's gone to some bother to prevent people from copying his pictures so it seems a bit off to just copy it anyway and post it here).

Why aren't the spinners visible in that picture? You could answer that they've been removed from the model for some reason, and I'd have to concede that you might well be right.

But my alternative, equally valid suggestion is what I've already said about the Golden West picture - you're not seeing the spinners through the outer domes, you're seeing the shadows of the spinners cast on the outer domes by the light coming from within. When the model is lit, the light comes from the bulbs. When the model is unlit, the light is ambient light reflected from the mirrors. In the case of the photo in which the spinners aren't visible most of the light is coming from the camera flash, and isn't reflected in the right direction to cast shadows that we can see.

There's no need for either of us to get worked up, or make claims about "poppycock" or clutching at straws", we can both just recognize that these photographs aren't actually evidence of one thing or the other.

Let me try and lay this out simply. We've all seen Star Trek. We've all seen that, basically, the nacelle dome effect looks like a bunch of narrow vanes slowly rotating around a bunch of blinking lights.

But, like Clerval, who was the first person to respond to this thread, as an adult, I've always assumed that the blinking effect was caused by the rotating vanes, because, where I'm from, in the 1960s, we didn't have all the hundreds of different complicated harnesses and goodness knows what else that apparently were available in the US.

I've been set straight on that, so now I'm looking at all the clips with fresh eyes, trying to work out which bulbs are blinking, and how often, and I'm just not seeing it. I'm still seeing apparently blinking lights, which when you look more closely, only appear to be blinking because of the spinners.

All I've asked for is evidence.

Some examples of what I'd consider to be evidence are:

Eye witness testimony that specifically mentions blinking bulbs.

Some sort of photograph that actually shows that there was, or even may have been, something more complicated than a set of miniature bulbs wired in series inside the dome.

Eye witness testimony indicating that there was something more complicated than a set of miniature bulbs wired in series inside the dome.

I've been tentatively formulating a theory of what would constitute proof of blinking lights inside the dome, and I think that if you could find a clip in which one of the slow moving phantom vanes rotated through 30 degrees past a light which remained off the entire time, that would be it. I'm going to look for that, and if I can find it, I'll post it here and try and explain why it proves that the lights did actually blink.

But all of the clips that people have said obviously show blinking Christmas tree lights so far don't even constitute evidence, let alone proof, and I've put quite a bit of effort into explaining why. I'm the one that ought to be getting hostile about this, to be honest.
 
Last edited:
You've seen the clip I pointed out, where the domes appear at times to be only blue, or only green, or only orange etc. These color changes hold for several frames at a time. This can ONLY be due to the colored bulbs blinking on and off. The fan blades passing over the bulbs CAN NOT block all illumination inside the dome, only the bulbs themselves. If a blue bulb is on, it's light will be visible inside the dome whether the bulb itself is blocked by the fan or not.
 
This thread is more than 3 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top