1910 Renault Automobile


Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>And the Bismarck nothing is collasped into the mud<<

True, in and of itself, but if you take a look at the photos of the wreck, you'll see that there is substantial damage from bottom impact. The section around the region of the armour belt that's caved in was photographed by the Cameron Expedition to the wreck a few years ago, and it wasn't the result of damage sustained in combat.

>>very tip of her stern is completely severed from her but that happened at the surface after she had a torpedo hit there<<

Not quite. The stern was not blown off by the torpedo but the rudder was. Still, there was substantial structural damage to this region and the best evidence is that the forces at work in the sinking caused this structure to break away. The same construction style was used in nearly all German capital ships and caused the same problems.

>>Plus Bismarck had 320 mm (12.6") thick side hull plating which ran most of the side of bismarck minus fore and aft of the main battery`s<<

Not quite. The armour belt was that thick, but this wasn't used everywhere. If you go to http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html you'll see some good information on how it was arranged.

Interestingly enough, this armour arrangement was at least partly responsible for the ship's demise. While adaquate for World War One, it just wasn't arranged to deal with the threat of plunging fire at the longer engagement ranges of World War Two.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Hmm never heard that of the bismark i heard of the hood as not having good deck protection but i heard bismark had great deck protection, look how many shells were pumped into her and she contuned to float till she was scuttled to prevent her from falling into enemy hands.

And i ment the armor belt. that ran mostly the whole side of the ship minus the sides infront of turret Anton, and behind Turret Dora.

Well then if the stern wasnt blown clean off i wonder why ballads book has ken marshal`s painting and the world geographic of the wreck shows up that the stern end is missing and part of the german swatsticka is missing but was found a good deal away.

I also havent seen the new footage of the wreck or pictures all im going on is what was known in 1986-87 when ballard went to her.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Hmm never heard that of the bismark i heard of the hood as not having good deck protection but i heard bismark had great deck protection,<<

She didn't. This fact came as quite a shock to the British naval authorities too. You might want to get a copy of Antony Preston's "The World's Worst Warships" as it goes into the details.

>>how many shells were pumped into her and she contuned to float till she was scuttled to prevent her from falling into enemy hands.<<

That's because of the fact that the ship had very good subdivision, the defects in armour protection and layout notwithstanding. A warship can be a very tough nut to crack much less sink. The problem with the Bismarck is that there had been a nearly 20 year gap in design because of the Treaty of Versailles which prohibeted the Germans from building battleships. With no continuity of design experience...and for obvious reasons, nobody was inclined to help them...they had to look back for something to base it on. The best they could do was essentially an improved version of the World War One Bayern class. Unfortunately for the Germans, the virtues of this design also came with the baggage that would apply to a World War One era superdreadnaught.

As to the question of the ship being scuttled, this is questionable at best. With hundreds of shells pouring in, communications was lost with the engine room very early on and the ship herself was out of action within twenty minutes. That doesn't mean that scuttling charges weren't fired, but if they were, all they did was hasten the end of a burning and waterlogged hulk that was already on the way down.

>>Well then if the stern wasnt blown clean off i wonder why ballads book has ken marshal`s painting and the world geographic of the wreck shows up that the stern end is missing and part of the german swatsticka is missing but was found a good deal away.<<

Take a closer look. The break there is clean and even. You don't get that sort of failure from simply being blown off. Explosives make nice big gaping and ragged holes, not clean breaks.

>>I also havent seen the new footage of the wreck or pictures all im going on is what was known in 1986-87 when ballard went to her.<

You might want to get a copy of the Discovery Channel documentary that was done on the Cameron Expedition. It should still be available. I think you'll find it interesting.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Well I didnt get a chance to see the new cameron expedition to titanic that everyone was talking bout on tv just thought bout getting it from discorverychannel i think it was on there if so ill just buy it.

But i havent really kept that up with the bismarck all i know is that ive read some books and that she was a new class of vessle and the most up to date vessle at the time and i wouldnt doubt that considering germany had the 262 jet aircraft even in the 30`s. and then by time the war was over the germans had fly by wire air to air rockets, SAM`s, VTOL projects, hell the germans were even experimenting with disk shaped craft since 1922 based off of Telsa anti gravity technology. So in my mind I just find it hard to belive that bismarck was kinda built off WWI standards i know in 1939 to early 1940 the U Boats were based off of WWI styles but by time the bismarck was being built the U-boats were all new technology compared to the WWI boats.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>So in my mind I just find it hard to belive that bismarck was kinda built off WWI standards <<

What one finds hard to believe has nothing to do with the reality I'm afraid.

Granted, Germany made quite a few technological advances but advances in one area don't necesserily carry over into another. Hitler's Riech didn't have a really good grasp of seapower and a twenty year break in design between ships is a long time by any reckoning. The required skills are parishable and you can't improve on them much if you don't use them in the first place.

The Bismarck's legend I'm afraid is way overblown. While there was no doubt that she presented a substantial threat to shipping, she really wasn't much of a match for modern battleships built by nations which had no break in design experience. Her armour scheme was quite obsolete, her fire control wasn't all that great, she was outgunned by anyone with 16" guns, and the stern structure had serious weaknesses that were to prove to be a problem for other German capital ships.

She wasn't a bad ship, but what was already out there was simply better by the time she was built. Believe or not, like it or not, that's the cold hard reality. Her chief military value was in tying up numerous warships which had to be kept cclose to home and ready to deal with her in case of a breakout. After she had been sunk, the Tirpitz still caused the same problems and that's why the British went to the lengths they did to destroy her.

>>i know in 1939 to early 1940 the U Boats were based off of WWI styles but by time the bismarck was being built the U-boats were all new technology compared to the WWI boats.<<

Not quite. The boats got bigger, range improved, and the technology more reliable but the U-Boats they had didn't have really great improvements in performance beyond being able to dive a bit deeper. These were still essentially surface vessels which could submerge briefly to carry out attacks and (hopefully) creep away.

The real advances in U-boat design came with the Type XXI which was well streamlined, had vastly better battary capacity, better speed and better underwater endurance. Had the German's had these boats at the beginning of the war, I daresay would would all be sig heiling whoever the present day Fuhrer happened to be.


We're damned lucky that most of Germany's advances were too little and too late to do them any good.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Yes the real advances was with the Type XXI but the type XI also had the snorkle like the type XXI but the only difference is that she had no stern tubes and had 6 fore tubes and had a acoustic guided electric torpedos, then ladder search pattern torpedoes,ect. But the fact still remains that they advanced technology was around since the 30`s when they started to advance their technology, they were also secretly working on the VTOL project with the saucer project using Tesla anti gravity technology enableing the craft to go 500,000 kph in earths atmosphere and 900,000 kph in a vacuum (calculated)
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>they were also secretly working on the VTOL project with the saucer project using Tesla anti gravity technology enableing the craft to go 500,000 kph in earths atmosphere and 900,000 kph in a vacuum (calculated)<<

Sources please. Whoever penned that whopper needs to get back on his meds.

>>But the fact still remains that they advanced technology was around since the 30`s when they started to advance their technology,<<

Which unfortunately wasn't reflected in their capital ship designs. No matter how one chooses to spin it, their deficiencies overallm particularly those of the two Bismarck class ships, are documented fact.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
I was watching the dvd again and I just noticed something right after they say i think were seeing cars if you pause it, i can make out what appears to be a engine block covered with silt. to the left of what appears to be a fender now it could be something different but i just noticed that just now. It looks like i can make out an exhaust manifold (cast iron material) and i dont know if its my eyes playing tricks on me or not but it looks like i can make out spark plug wires. but thats probly just me but i know they used to have copper core plug wires then most likely and they still use them but only on high performance vehicles.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
"Sources please. Whoever penned that whopper needs to get back on his meds"

So your saying orignal research material that survived and small models built by the nazi`s to design the airframe let alone the numerious pictures i have seen in person at musuems that show the craft that clearly show (faintly to others if they dont know what to look for) german crosses under the craft or the lighting bolt SS seal. or my favorite one of a 109 flying in formation with the craft and both sporting same paint job and same cross marking on the side, and this one just happened to have a king tiger tank cannon straped to the underside. now the figures were purely calculated im sure doubt they were able to test them but the fact remains that they were using craft that didnt require a combustion engine just a small electric engine to jumpstart the antigravity equipment.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>So your saying orignal research material that survived and small models built by the nazi`s to design the airframe let alone the numerious pictures i have seen in person at musuems that show the craft that clearly show (faintly to others if they dont know what to look for) german crosses under the craft or the lighting bolt SS seal.<<

What "Original" research material?

What Models?

What insignia?

Matt, I'm not questioning that the Germans made some great advances in the field of aviation and that in some areas they may have taken a trip on the wild side. There are plenty of examples of that in the '50's and a lot of what was accomplished then built on what was accomplished by German aviation pioneers such as Willy Messerschmitt.

What I'm taking issue with is the outrageous assertion that there was actually any such thing as a Tesla Anti-Gravity engine. The idea of achieving speeds of between 500,000 to 900,000 kph doesn't even bear discussion. Not in a day and age when even being able to break the sound barrier was viewed with skepticism.

Please don't resort to strawman arguements or trying to snowball anyone here with the "Golly-Gee-Whiz-Willikers-Wow" stuff you see in a lot of the popular medie these days. Trust me, it won't fly. What I asked you for are the sources which I can see and read for myself, with primary sources being preferred. If one of Hitler's scientists seriously thought he could build anything capable of going from 500,000 to 900,000 kph using and engine that nobody had ever built, I'd like to see it in his own words, and the mathamatical calculations put up for all to see.

Some of our members here are very good mathmaticians and I'm sure a few of them would enjoy the challange of sorting it out for themselves.

And all that aside, advances in aviation technology do not translate into advances in maritime/naval technology. Especially when research and development is put into one at the expense of the other. Further, the Bismark class was conceived with studies going back to the 1920s and with the actual design and construction dating to the mid '30's.

The real groundbreaking aviation work came later.

On the question of the Renault, you may very well have seen exactly what you say you did. There's no question that the car was down there. The problem is that in such darkness and in a scene of such carnage, it's very difficult even for trained eyes to make things out with absolute certainty.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Well alot of the expeimental craft can be found with specifications and documents and or pictures at WWW.luft46.com

Other than that, I said the speeds were calculated not that they were proven and its not a engine, its antigravity technology, Should really try reading up about what tesla invented cause he inveted that object in the late 1890`s early 1900`s. He invented alot of things that after he died no one knows about considering the fact the CIA confiscated all of his research and documents and their still classified. He told them and was even published in the New York times in 1941 i belive it was about a Tesla death ray as it was called. where it would use a beam of light and placing these plants that would create this beam of "light" it would create a invisable wall that it would detonate the bomb load of bombers and also melt the internal guts of jet engines and piston engines.

If you want to belive it you can if not I dont really care but it isnt smart to knock someones statements around just cause you do not belive it to physicaly be possible or happen. Look at sanger he invented the orbital bomber which could go around the world by "skiping" on the outskirts of earths atmosphere and the speed of that craft was running at a maximum of 22,100 KPH(13,724 MPH).
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
What "Original" research material?

What Models?

What insignia?

Orignal research material that was confiscated by the US and British forces as they took over french and later german bases.

what models? the wind tunnel models. they have them of Sangers orbital bomber that was found in german and they found 3 of the Haunebu II saucer crafts. The specs listed on this one ive read in person that i was able to buy a museum copy of list it as having a 25 meter Diamter, it was powered by a mag-feld-Impulsar 4 and this craft had a 4,800 Kph standard speed and a theoretical max of 17,000 Kph.

heres some text taken from this one document that is online since you want to read physical proof i did a search, i didnt see nothing online cause i seen the orignal documents when i went on two trips to germany.

( Historically speaking, the German's motive for developing the Nazi Bell device seems apparent. Hitler's Third Reich had an almost borderline obsession with secret "wunder" and "uber-weapons" that they felt would give them an advantage against the Allies. The wild success of the V-2 rocket program had emboldened them to undertake the development of even more esoteric weapons projects - such as the world's first jet fighter, the ME-262, and a series of jet-powered Coanda-Effect UFO prototypes) Theres alot to read 16 pages to be exact here. http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Einstein-Antigravity.pdf
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Other than that, I said the speeds were calculated not that they were proven and its not a engine, its antigravity technology<<

No you didn't. What you said was "they were also secretly working on the VTOL project with the saucer project using Tesla anti gravity technology enableing the craft to go 500,000 kph in earths atmosphere and 900,000 kph in a vacuum (calculated)

And there is no such thing as an anti-gravity device. There might have been hopes of building such a thing. As far as I knw, there still are, but hopes are one thing, and doing the engineering to build a practical working device are quite another.

And on that website, you did notice the following, I hope: "During WWII, German aircraft designers put forth many aircraft project ideas, which ranged from the
practical to the bizarre."

>>what models? the wind tunnel models. they have them of Sangers orbital bomber that was found in german and they found 3 of the Haunebu II saucer crafts. The specs listed on this one ive read in person that i was able to buy a museum copy of list it as having a 25 meter Diamter, it was powered by a mag-feld-Impulsar 4 and this craft had a 4,800 Kph standard speed and a theoretical max of 17,000 Kph.<<

However, again, what you *said* was "they were also secretly working on the VTOL project with the saucer project using Tesla anti gravity technology enableing the craft to go 500,000 kph in earths atmosphere and 900,000 kph in a vacuum (calculated)"

At best, all you've shown is that the German Luftwaffe and the Nazis had some pretty far out ideas and the *point* your missing is that even if these had come to fruition, none of this carries over to Naval research, development, testing and evaluation, much less to a practical and useful warship.

It really doesn't matter how much you choose to spin it, the Bismarck was at best an obsolecent vessel from the start. Powerful in her own right, but outclassed in just about every respect by every modern battleship built in the same time period.

This just doesn't go away.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
first of all obviously your blind it says (Calculated) after the speeds so your calling me a lier which is a lie yourself cause even you posted where i said (calculated) after the speeds so you just made yourself look like an ass. And I never said that site had orignal documents i said thats a site where some of the prototype models can be found with some information luft46 isnt a modeling website its a website for prototype aircraft that would have been seen in use during the 1946 year of the war but some people model the craft to give people an idea what the craft looks like.

Also you say theres no such thing as a antigravity device? well i wonder why their selling a common toy that has a large magnetic base and a small magnetic top and long as the top spins 20 to 25 rpm it will float with the proper ammount of weight added to it and float 5 inches above the magnetic base, now earth is one big magnet basicly so anti gravity technology has been around for years just that no one will let the technology come out till the oil has been depleted and the internal combustion engine isnt anymore. Plus if the technology dosent exsist then why do they have a german test site for the VTOL anti gravity craft then. And on a final note i said i seen the REAL documents in person when i was in germany so if you want to see the documents and the wind tunnel models you have to go to germany you can see the sanger orbital bomber on luft46 they have a picture of the wind tunnel model but not of the other craft that i know of. After this im not going to reply on the subject anymore this is a Titanic site not a nazi technology messageboard, another thing ive got more on nazi technology than you could find online cause most of the research i have is based off of orignal german documents. Mainly cause i got off of titanic research for a good 7 years
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>first of all obviously your blind it says (Calculated) after the speeds <<

Nooooo...I'm pointing out to you the *differences* between what you claimed you said and what you really said.

>>so your calling me a lier <<

No I'm not. At the very least however, I can point out that you're not keeping track of your own words or that you may be trying to change your story on the fly as you go. Since your verbatim written words are up there for all to see, this isn't a particularly good idea.

>>And I never said that site had orignal documents <<

However you did offer it as your source. As for the rest, at best, all I have is your say so on the matter and most of it is irrelevant nonsense in any event. I'm not interested in silly conspiracy theories of the ever undefined "They" or "Nobody" who will or will not let new technology out until the oil runs out in some grand neferious plot to screw over "The People" and magnets are *not* antigravity technology. And magnatism, whatever one can say about it, is not gravity.

The issue here when you get down to it is the question of the Renault and certain forensics issues, and everything which has followed has gone off into irrelevant tangents.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Thats funny your talking about how it got off topic but yet your still rambling on about it and you were the main one asking for proof and everything you were the one that got off topic and went into the Bismarck which then went into nazi technology. So dont try to blaim or put this on anyone but yourself. I was talking about the Titanic you brought the Bismarck into the picture. Another thing what i claimed to have said and what i said, why dont you open your eyes and go back and read the first time i posted that about the craft it still says (calculated) after the speed or cant you comprehend what is said cause you sure are provoking a internet fight which is very childish. Getting to the point where its worse than yahoo chat with all their childish bs fights.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
When I cited the Bismarck, it was in the context of discussing the strange and often inexplicable things that happen when ships sink. Remember this: "Take a look at the Bismarck. No question that this battleship was a rugged vessel, and yet a nice sized chunk near the mudline is caved in."

The rest as they say, is history.

As for asking for proof of any proposition, I make no apology for that, now or ever. Especially when the claims made go so far out of line with reality as to be way beyond absurd. If you have a problem with that, then that's exactly what it is:

Your problem.

Now if you wish to discuss the dynamics of what happens in a shipwreck and why it most probably happens as it does, we can carry on with this.

If not, then I'm done here.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
well im going to do what you did and say you claim to say that, plus i already said im done so theres no need to say your done cause its kind of stupid to get off topic and proceed to keep it off topic with replys then say your done.

Secondly ive said from the begining that the speed was calculated and if you dont want to do the research yourself and be ignorant and say its not possible the im not going to waste my time cause einstine even stated in his theory that time travel is possible, hard to accomplish but is possible so what is so hard to belive that antigravity technology is impossible like you are when its even been used before I stated before i dont care if you belive it or not but i didnt get off topic neve rasked for an appology but you cant put the blaim on me cause you brought the bismarck into it yes it might have been an example but still i brought in the specifications of the bismarck as a compairson between the two and you started going off into how its technology is strictly WWI based and I used the technology of the antigravity craft that the germans started experimenting with since 1922 and the first one didnt work but they were able to get some to work and the specs as far as speed goes were all calculated.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads