Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Talk:Olympic Carrier/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Discussion page of Olympic Carrier/Archive 1
No edit summary
Joe Beaudoin Jr. (talk | contribs)
m Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"
 
Line 3: Line 3:
It is apparent that this figure of 49,317 is immediately before the loss of the Olympic Carrier, because 49,317 minus 1,345 equals exactly 47,972, which is the figure stated near after the destruction of the Olympic Carrier.  The 2,028 assumption is merely the result of the editing process and there is no discontinuity in the numbers.
It is apparent that this figure of 49,317 is immediately before the loss of the Olympic Carrier, because 49,317 minus 1,345 equals exactly 47,972, which is the figure stated near after the destruction of the Olympic Carrier.  The 2,028 assumption is merely the result of the editing process and there is no discontinuity in the numbers.


:Allright, I buy it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:27, 2 December 2005 (EST)
:Allright, I buy it. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 17:27, 2 December 2005 (EST)

Latest revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020

The Olympic Carrier carried exactly 1,345 people, as explicitly told. The 2,028 figure is inaccurate because in a deleted scene on the DVD which likely occurred mid-episode, it is specifically shown that there are exactly 49,317 survivors left, according to the White Board. This had been rounded down from 49,998 earlier in the episode, likely due to the fact that they were continuing to revise estimates of total population and eliminating overcounts or adjusting for wounded people who had died.

It is apparent that this figure of 49,317 is immediately before the loss of the Olympic Carrier, because 49,317 minus 1,345 equals exactly 47,972, which is the figure stated near after the destruction of the Olympic Carrier. The 2,028 assumption is merely the result of the editing process and there is no discontinuity in the numbers.

Allright, I buy it. --April Arcus 17:27, 2 December 2005 (EST)