Paul, although I appreciate you will not be able to meet the authors, feel free to join our group in Southampton next year for the 96th anniversary events.
OLYMPIC & TITANIC The Truth Behind The Conspiracy
- Thread starter Steven Hall
- Start date
-
- Tags
- olympic
I hope that the book does mention the fact that aside from the 401 encised on T's prop...the French submersible NAUTILE also consumed much of a particular dive, revealing the 18" (encised) letters T I T A N I C on her portside upper hull works. As video revealed on the "live" 1987 (Joslyn) telecast..."Retun to the Titanic" live from Paris, France.
As an aside...the revealing of the portside letters is also accounted in Jenifer Carter's writing.
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
As an aside...the revealing of the portside letters is also accounted in Jenifer Carter's writing.
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
Ralph White was in the submersible on that occasion, and they used an old broom to push aside the rust on the port side letters. I'd spoken to him about that exact trip to the wreck in a telephone conversation with him years before the books release.
Olympic could have easily have had starboard wing and port wing props with 401 on them.
There were many other things on the wreck that could be used to identify what ship it was quite easily. The book covers them.
If Bruce or myself ever got an opportunity to dive to the wreck, we could investigate other areas of interest — especially to those most interested in the structural side of the ship itself. Perhaps one day we maybe invited to an expedition to the wreck. We can only see what happens in the future.
We have a new 600 + technical book due out in the UK in Dec. this year. Onboard with us in this publication, our research partners Scott Andrews, Daniel Kistorner and Art Braunschweiger.
Steve
Olympic could have easily have had starboard wing and port wing props with 401 on them.
There were many other things on the wreck that could be used to identify what ship it was quite easily. The book covers them.
If Bruce or myself ever got an opportunity to dive to the wreck, we could investigate other areas of interest — especially to those most interested in the structural side of the ship itself. Perhaps one day we maybe invited to an expedition to the wreck. We can only see what happens in the future.
We have a new 600 + technical book due out in the UK in Dec. this year. Onboard with us in this publication, our research partners Scott Andrews, Daniel Kistorner and Art Braunschweiger.
Steve
Hello Paul,
You will both be most welcome. Sorry, I know I'm going off the main thread here, so I will contact you privately with details, and what preliminary Info I have from Southampton Council regarding the 96th Anniversary events.
If anyone else wishes to join our Titanic group for next April, then I can be contacted on jcreamer16@hotmail.com
Regards,
You will both be most welcome. Sorry, I know I'm going off the main thread here, so I will contact you privately with details, and what preliminary Info I have from Southampton Council regarding the 96th Anniversary events.
If anyone else wishes to join our Titanic group for next April, then I can be contacted on jcreamer16@hotmail.com
Regards,
However, it was commander P.H. Nargeolet who performed the primary work on revealing the portside letters...a culmination of NAUTILE dives. And according to Jennifer Carter it was not an easy task. Perhaps Ralph White was merely an observer. BTW, the "Return to the Titanic" live from Paris, France '87 (Joslyn) does feature segments with White inboard the French submersible. And in fact, he was a participant during the IFREMER initiation of Carter's dive in the NAUTILE. As attested by the aforementioned video!
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
Ralph told me on the dog and bone it was him; and they had trouble getting close to the ( N I ) because the railing above was hanging down. That's why the footage is staggered. The footage sequence was patched together from 3 dives.
Now if Ralph said it was him that done it, or whether Jen said it was P.H, the footage was taken either way.
Discussion about the port side bow letters.
https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5919/87362.html?1087425754
I have not read Jenny's book either.
http://www.amazon.com/Titanic-Adventure-Womans-Voyage-Legendary/dp/0882821709
Now if Ralph said it was him that done it, or whether Jen said it was P.H, the footage was taken either way.
Discussion about the port side bow letters.
https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5919/87362.html?1087425754
I have not read Jenny's book either.
http://www.amazon.com/Titanic-Adventure-Womans-Voyage-Legendary/dp/0882821709
Clear visual / photographic evidence of the moon landers, astronauts’ footprints and experiments photographed on the moon surface.
Watch those moon conspiracy knuckheads slink of into the dark, never to be seen again.
Those that the sprouted all this nonsense should be called upon to make public apologies.
--------
BBC: "A US spacecraft has captured images of Apollo landing sites on the Moon, revealing hardware and a trail of footprints left on the lunar surface.
The release of the images coincides with the 40th anniversary of the first manned mission to land on the Moon.
The descent stages from the lunar modules which carried astronauts to and from the Moon can clearly be seen.
The image of the Apollo 14 landing site shows scientific instruments and an astronaut footpath in the lunar dust.
It is the first time hardware left on the Moon by the Apollo missions has been seen from lunar orbit.
The pictures were taken by Nasa's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft, which launched on 18 June." . . . . .
Link:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8157368.stm
Watch those moon conspiracy knuckheads slink of into the dark, never to be seen again.
Those that the sprouted all this nonsense should be called upon to make public apologies.
--------
BBC: "A US spacecraft has captured images of Apollo landing sites on the Moon, revealing hardware and a trail of footprints left on the lunar surface.
The release of the images coincides with the 40th anniversary of the first manned mission to land on the Moon.
The descent stages from the lunar modules which carried astronauts to and from the Moon can clearly be seen.
The image of the Apollo 14 landing site shows scientific instruments and an astronaut footpath in the lunar dust.
It is the first time hardware left on the Moon by the Apollo missions has been seen from lunar orbit.
The pictures were taken by Nasa's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft, which launched on 18 June." . . . . .
Link:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8157368.stm
<< Watch those moon conspiracy knuckheads slink of into the dark, never to be seen again.
Those that the sprouted all this nonsense should be called upon to make public apologies. >>
Unfortunately, rather than this, we will likely hear "The photos were doctored!" or "It's just part of the conspiracy!", and those who actively propagate this conspiracy nonsense will use this as another soapbox to continue their quest to revise history.
After all, their books would stop selling and they would soon lose any public attention paid to them if they were to humbly admit the truth and say "I was wrong." It's much easier to do what's convenient than what's right.
Those that the sprouted all this nonsense should be called upon to make public apologies. >>
Unfortunately, rather than this, we will likely hear "The photos were doctored!" or "It's just part of the conspiracy!", and those who actively propagate this conspiracy nonsense will use this as another soapbox to continue their quest to revise history.
After all, their books would stop selling and they would soon lose any public attention paid to them if they were to humbly admit the truth and say "I was wrong." It's much easier to do what's convenient than what's right.
No footprints visible before Apollo 14. What if Edgar Mitchell and Alan Shepard had been the first men on the moon?
All the pro/con conspiracy discussions make it appear as if all landings must have been real, or all must have been faked. Probably there is something in between.
All the pro/con conspiracy discussions make it appear as if all landings must have been real, or all must have been faked. Probably there is something in between.
>>Probably there is something in between.<<
There really isn't anything in between. It wasn't just 12 men walking on the Moon but a cast of thousands who got together to make it happen. With that many witnesses who were in on it every step of the way, if it had been a put up job, somebody would have blown the whistle 40 years ago.
There really isn't anything in between. It wasn't just 12 men walking on the Moon but a cast of thousands who got together to make it happen. With that many witnesses who were in on it every step of the way, if it had been a put up job, somebody would have blown the whistle 40 years ago.
To make one thing clear: I am 100% convinced that the USA have achieved the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him back safely to the earth, and it does not matter that much to me whether it was done before the decade was out or not, although this would have been an important difference back then. I have tried to draw this conclusion from the information available to me, and I hope neither pride nor grudge nor ideology have played any part in me reaching it.
Even if the motivation for the whole business has been mostly political, I consider the success of the Apollo program and its predecessors one of the greatest feats of mankind so far.
What I mean is that the footsteps visible in the new images of the Apollo 14 site can not be used to prove that people have walked from the Apollo 11 LEM, not more and not less. If one would choose to believe that the first two landings had been faked because the craft had not been quite ready yet, the footprints from Apollo 14 would not refute that.
But, however, I think when the LRO probe will have reached its final mapping orbit, there will be clear photographic evidence that will put an end to all this, save for those who won't understand or believe what they see (but that is the way it has been for forty years now, isn't it?)...
PS: Of course some of the words I have used are President Kennedy's, I wish he could have seen how much he has moved.
Even if the motivation for the whole business has been mostly political, I consider the success of the Apollo program and its predecessors one of the greatest feats of mankind so far.
What I mean is that the footsteps visible in the new images of the Apollo 14 site can not be used to prove that people have walked from the Apollo 11 LEM, not more and not less. If one would choose to believe that the first two landings had been faked because the craft had not been quite ready yet, the footprints from Apollo 14 would not refute that.
But, however, I think when the LRO probe will have reached its final mapping orbit, there will be clear photographic evidence that will put an end to all this, save for those who won't understand or believe what they see (but that is the way it has been for forty years now, isn't it?)...
PS: Of course some of the words I have used are President Kennedy's, I wish he could have seen how much he has moved.
In celebration of the landing, the common interest I found is that Walter Cronkite is primarily responsible for the formation of the Discovery Channel. Also Buzz Aldrin who dove to the TITANIC in '96, to release the transponder holding the chains that lowered the disel bags for recovery, knocked out a heckler who tailed him shouting..."The moon landing/walks were a fake". There is a great special on the Na't Geo. channel in which professionals answer all
the questions for those skeptics! In closing...farewell good friend Mr. Cronkite, your hope to save our ship (S.S.U.S) is with us all...
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
the questions for those skeptics! In closing...farewell good friend Mr. Cronkite, your hope to save our ship (S.S.U.S) is with us all...
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
>>there will be clear photographic evidence that will put an end to all this,<<
Don't count on it. Paranoid/conspiracy theorists are not in the least bit put off by inconvenient facts. They just dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.
Ain't cognitive dissonance wonderful???
Don't count on it. Paranoid/conspiracy theorists are not in the least bit put off by inconvenient facts. They just dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.
Ain't cognitive dissonance wonderful???
>>Don't count on it. Paranoid/conspiracy theorists are not in the least bit put off by inconvenient facts. They just dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.<<
Well said, Michael. I don't think you're going to change the minds of the conspiracy theorists...in what ever subject there may be...no matter what !
Well said, Michael. I don't think you're going to change the minds of the conspiracy theorists...in what ever subject there may be...no matter what !
>> ...I don't think you're going to change the minds of the conspiracy theorists...
Damn straight, and the conspiracy theorists will not change the minds of the true believers.
Great war is the only way to resolve issues like this. Whoever wins the war owns the truth.
Damn straight, and the conspiracy theorists will not change the minds of the true believers.
Great war is the only way to resolve issues like this. Whoever wins the war owns the truth.
>> Great war is the only way to resolve issues like this
But this is no better than just another conspiracy theory! HELP!! (where was I?...
But this is no better than just another conspiracy theory! HELP!! (where was I?...
"Conspiracy theorists have used the internet to co-ordinate increasingly slick attacks on the accepted versions of events, but now a group of scientists and sceptics has decided it's time to organise and fight back." BBC.
When sceptics fight back
When sceptics fight back
The basic need here is to spread common sense intelligence through teaching about fallacies. Most people who fall for these rumors do so because they don’t have the practical smarts to think of a rebuttal for them and so they end up feeling the rumor must be true. The most common flaw whether the area be history, science or current politics is the “begging the conclusion” fallacy. IE: “I’ve haven’t provided any logical evidence for my position but unless you provide evidence against it then my position must be the true one”. ...And that evidence can’t be anything that they would hit their ego against either.
Bill
Bill
