Most of the film and pictures we see of the Titanic are not of the Titanic at all, but its sister ship, the Olympic. They were virtually identical, but had a slight difference in the balconies, apparently.
Was the ship that sank not the Titanic at all, but actually the Olympic? Did they do a swap?
0
1 votes
Titanic insurance scam
Started by
Flibbertigibbet
, Feb 27 2012 05:18 PM
8 replies to this topic
#1
Flibbertigibbet
-
- Member
-
- 503 posts
Remote Viewer
- Joined:24 Nov 2011
- Gender:Female
- Location:UK
-
“I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right.”
― P.T. Barnam
Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:18 PM
#2
Czero 101
-
- Member
-
- 4,621 posts
Alien Abducter
- Joined:24 Dec 2007
- Gender:Male
- Location:Vancouver, BC
-
We are all made of thermonuclear waste material
Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:29 PM
"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf
#3
_Only
-
- Member
-
- 5,578 posts
★
- Joined:24 Oct 2008
- Gender:Male
- Location:Northern California
-
Did you ever grow anything in the garden of your mind? You can grow ideas, in the garden of your mind. - Mr. Rogers
Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:58 PM
Why do it herself when polite users such as yourself are so quick to help?
I love to make mashups! Click to hear them!
I also love taking pictures! Click to see them!
I love to play drums, too! Click to rock!
I also love taking pictures! Click to see them!
I love to play drums, too! Click to rock!
#4
Rafterman
-
- Member
-
- 3,411 posts
Government Agent
- Joined:27 Sep 2010
- Gender:Male
- Location:Upstate
Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:33 PM
The idea that they somehow flipped the ships in dry dock without anyone noticing is absurd. I'd have to ask anyone supporting that theory if they've ever seen what it takes to get a ship into dry dock TODAY much less 100 years ago.
Equally absurd is the notion that they just switched the names in dry dock and no one noticed. Even if none of the hundreds of folks working on the two ships said to themselves "gee, wasn't the Titanic one the left yesterday?", there's still the point that no two sister ships are EXACTLY alike.
Equally absurd is the notion that they just switched the names in dry dock and no one noticed. Even if none of the hundreds of folks working on the two ships said to themselves "gee, wasn't the Titanic one the left yesterday?", there's still the point that no two sister ships are EXACTLY alike.
#5
Left-Field
-
- Banned
-
- 3,489 posts
Government Agent
- Joined:15 Aug 2009
Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:43 PM
Czero 101, on 27 February 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:
Jerry Only, on 27 February 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:
Why do it herself when polite users such as yourself are so quick to help?
And then if she posts in that thread she'll be told it is nearly three years old and how necroposting is frowned upon. So yea, she might as well of started a new thread like she did.
#6
Czero 101
-
- Member
-
- 4,621 posts
Alien Abducter
- Joined:24 Dec 2007
- Gender:Male
- Location:Vancouver, BC
-
We are all made of thermonuclear waste material
Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:52 PM
Silvergun Superman, on 28 February 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:
And then if she posts in that thread she'll be told it is nearly three years old and how necroposting is frowned upon. So yea, she might as well of started a new thread like she did.
Yeah, you're probably right, but does that mean that its wrong for me (or anyone else for that matter)to have pointed out that the topic had been discussed here before...?
Cz
"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf
#7
Left-Field
-
- Banned
-
- 3,489 posts
Government Agent
- Joined:15 Aug 2009
Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:02 PM
Czero 101, on 28 February 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:
Yeah, you're probably right, but does that mean that its wrong for me (or anyone else for that matter)to have pointed out that the topic had been discussed here before...?
Cz
Cz
Only if you go about doing it in a way that makes it seem like they were foolish for having started their own thread about the subject.
#8
badeskov
-
- Member
-
- 9,473 posts
Omnipotent Entity
- Joined:27 Aug 2006
- Gender:Male
- Location:California
-
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain
Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:17 AM
Silvergun Superman, on 28 February 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:
Only if you go about doing it in a way that makes it seem like they were foolish for having started their own thread about the subject.
Not necessarily. It would suit a person starting a thread to have done a simply Google search, one in which the previous UM thread would inevitably show up. Read the previous research and then take that into account when starting a new thread, as a new one would obviously be required. Maybe a new thread would turn out to be completely unwarranted (hint: it is).
Cheers,
Badeskov
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.
#9
Left-Field
-
- Banned
-
- 3,489 posts
Government Agent
- Joined:15 Aug 2009
Posted 29 February 2012 - 07:43 PM
badeskov, on 29 February 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:
Not necessarily. It would suit a person starting a thread to have done a simply Google search, one in which the previous UM thread would inevitably show up. Read the previous research and then take that into account when starting a new thread, as a new one would obviously be required. Maybe a new thread would turn out to be completely unwarranted (hint: it is).
Cheers,
Badeskov
Cheers,
Badeskov
Why? Because you say so? There are others (like myself) who may have been completely unaware of the topic and therefore enjoy seeing it posted again.
But here's a crazy idea for everyone - how about we let the moderators, who are here for a reason, go about making members aware of whether or not they are doing anything "wrong" by starting a new topic on a subject that had last been discussed nearly three years ago.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
