Parks Stephenson's Marconigraphcom


Dec 2, 2000
58,614
680
483
Easley South Carolina
Parks, been there, gone over it, liked it! I can only imagine how much hard work went into researching the new material.

To anyone else, if you haven't been to Parks website, this is a very good time to go over for a look see. It's well worth it.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
680
483
Easley South Carolina
I probably did. The trouble is that I was so absorbed by the material, I wasn't really paying much attention. Talk about not seeing the forrest for the trees!

If my faulty memory serves though, some of the tiles appeared to be a darker color...

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
116
0
Michael,

The biggest challenge with the tiles is trying to guess what the original colour would have looked like new, instead of after decades immersed in salt water or as pictured in an artist's impression. The person performing QA on my renditions is Ken Marschall...once he gives the OK, I'm not making any more changes. That having been said, onlt a few of the tiles pictured on my website have gotten his final OK. The rest are still in work.

Parks
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
116
0
Nigel,

I probably misspoke myself. Ken has stopped making comment on the first 5 tiles on my webpage, so I'm assuming that he's satisfied with the rendition. Ken, however, is a perfectionist, and never stops critiquing even his own work, so there's no guarantee that he won't re-evaluate at some future date. The other tiles are still under discussion. And, no, the 1st Cl. Dining Saloon tile is still in work; in fact, I just re-worked the entire tile and have started over again.

Remember, these tiles are merely a diversion. They started out as background decoration for my website. We may end up with a catalogue of the floor tiles known to have been used aboard Titanic, but we're not going to rock the Titanic world with that information. That's why I don't mind posting them as works-in-progress; also, there is no rush to complete the project. These tiles are going to be in flux for some time to come.

Parks
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
116
0
I have recommissioned my Titanic website. For those of you who saw the old website (the one before the Rosarito Beach pictures), the new one will look both familiar and different. Please visit at:

http://home.flash.net/~sparks12/titanic.html

If anyone had my site bookmarked, the address is the same, but the title has changed somewhat.

Parks

[Moderator's note: As of February 009, Parks Stephenson's Titanic-related material is online at http://marconigraph.com/. MAB]
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
60
308
Parks - Bloody Brilliant! Given the overwhelming amount of internet dross regarding the Titanic available on-line, there is a need for as much quality work out there as possible. And yours, IMHO, is among the very front rank of the front rankers. A much welcomed return.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,045
315
353
Speaking of good sites, what has become of David Billnitzer's thoughts on Californian? When checking the links on my own site recently I found his had vanished.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
680
483
Easley South Carolina
Parks, my hearty congatulations on getting your site going again. It was sorely missed! That section on the wireless looks really good BTW.
happy.gif


Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
60
308
I was particularly glad to see the White Paper you co-authored with David Brown accessible again - I know there were quite a few queries about it after you took the site off-line for a while. Am going to go back and read the tech stuff s-l-o-w-l-y to see if I can absorb it...perhaps even an old troglodyte like myself can grasp it all eventually.

~ Ing
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,045
315
353
Thanks for that new link, Parks. I found your radio page very good indeed and I'll add a link to it on my own site.
 
Dec 8, 2000
1,286
6
223
Thanks for the heads up - it's good to see it back again, and I've already updated my active links. As it was a recommissioning I take it you forewent the champagne and just shoved 'er back in?

Parks (and anyone else), do you know if Glenn Dunstan's Titanic radio site is just in dry dock for a short time or sitting on Alang beach? The link's been down the last few times I've checked.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
116
0
Fi & Dave,

I received a message at home last night from Glenn and was going to answer here from work, but I just discovered that his site won't come up. I'll have to wait until I get home again tonight to answer...at that time, I'll ask what's up with his site. Dave, thanks for the comment...do you know what's going on with Glenn?

You're absolutely right about shoving the site back in...I can only work on it after everyone else in the house has gone to bed, so there's no bubbly popping. There's more coming, though, so stay tuned. What you see right now is only the beginning...

Ing,

I have a dilemma...since Dave presented the grounding White Paper to the Marine Forensic Panel, I have learned and thought more about the subject. The Paper, as posted, is as it was when it was presented. I would, however, now like to make some subtle changes. I don't think we emphasised enough the topic of a design flaw with the WT doors, nor did we delve deeply enough into hydraulic compression of ballast tanks and the effect of such on the double bottom. I would also like to spend more time in BR #4, to discuss what went on there. So, I guess my question is, do I keep the Paper as formally presented (our Paper is still under review by a committee of the MFP), or do I post a revised version?

By the way, Bill Garzke, the chairman of the MFP, revised the formal SD-7 report on the sinking of Titanic. It's available for download in Adobe Acrobat format at:

www sname.org/AM2001/titanic.pdf

You'll notice some significant changes from the earlier version, particularly in the matter of "brittle steel." The issue of the aft expansion joint has also undergone a major revision, but I am still in disagreement with their conclusions on that subject. Dave also took Garzke to task for a few claims made in the paper. And yes, Dave and I rated a mention, but it wasn't anything to write home to Mother about.

Parks
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
680
483
Easley South Carolina
Parks, you may want to keep the paper as is and post revisions and updates in a seperate appendix or postscript in an update section.

I suspect that you and David will have quite a bit to hash out there as this sort of research never really ends. There always seems to be something new coming down the pike. Didn't Cameron's expidition cough up a few surprises after all? Some of it may be germane to what you and David are trying to accomplish.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Similar threads

Similar threads