|
Post by Ian Warren on Apr 10, 2016 17:16:51 GMT 12
One come to me yesterday, I told him of the find, the conspiracy theory, he works on cargo/container ships, I asked was this possible, forget the name changing and shape and design build and portholes, Gerard, said you can spot an iceberg at night even fogged in with a good moon! he said "at night they shine like diamonds" one thing pointed out and we had to have a chuckle .... who the hell was driving , the turn radius and distance , he said a lot of people have talked about this over the years but has been white washed out.
Before subject change to what I was doing, Gerald did say a good example was the 'Rena' on the reef and how companies hide the truth and today because of the media is to hard to hide the specifics, them said even the shipping lines today are very corrupt, P&O apparently one off the worst, all the details show it was he said it was deliberate, but it is history and well gone and done.
Another ship worked was the Steamer 'Holmdale' of the 'Canterbury Steam Shipping Company' mention there was many not sure, the ship was sold to another company and for insurance purpose say the cargo shifted in heavy seas to Norfolk Island ....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2016 10:03:27 GMT 12
#icebergsdontpunctureironhulls
Ian, please - give this a rest!!
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Apr 11, 2016 18:10:15 GMT 12
Hi Ian, I'm inclined to echo Zac's post. The thing is about all this conspiracy malarkey is that it is purely circumstantial evidence and in the real world, such a thing would not stand up in court. No one has provided real evidence to prove that such a conspiracy exists and a few missed port holes in old photos isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid. Can you actually prove that the images you have posted here were not doctored before you came across them? Can you prove either way that the people who wrote this stuff to begin with were acting with integrity or were just using what's available to prove their point? I suspect not.
There is a big difference between examining evidence and weighing it against everything that is known about the event and making conclusions based on the evidence and available information, and believing something to be true and providing supporting evidence, regardless of how flimsy to substantiate the claim. This is how people get to believing stories that Richard Pearse, or Preston Watson or Gustave Whitehead or any of these guys flew a powered aeroplane before the Wright Brothers. The claimants want it to be true and are able to use the information available to support their claim rather than analysing what's out there and looking beyond the surface and taking things like credibility into consideration.
Without hard evidence, the claim you make is baseless - let's face it. The opinion of an old sea dog isn't enough. Sorry man, I don't mean to bust your bubble, but there it is.
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Apr 19, 2016 12:52:01 GMT 12
forget the name changing and shape and design build and portholes, Why, because it derails the whole thing? said you can spot an iceberg at night even fogged in with a good moon! There was no moon on the night of April 14th/15th 1912.
|
|