Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Still Waters

Newly analyzed footage helps solve Hindenburg mystery

Recommended Posts

 
eight bits

The mind set is so different here from what I see in the Jesus Studies guild.

Here: A reputable scholar delivers the new material in person and hands it to the archivist. She checks that's she's been given the original box, bearing correct postage, correctly cancelled, that the marking on the leader matches the number on the box. and so and so on and so on. After all of which, the archivist says she isn't 100% certain, but it looks authentic.

Jesus Studies? A copy of a copy of a copy of ... an ancient letter, the original of which doesn't exist and may never have existed in the form we have it, contains a brief mention of its author meeting Jesus's "brother." Well, that's it, then, it's now 100% certain that a historical Jesus existed.

It's like two different planets.

Thanks, SW, for showing what genuine concern for following the evidence looks like.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inn Spectre

I do not believe that this 'new' footage can reveal anything not already known, since it was taken from the port side of the ship, as was all other known footage.  Soon after the accident, the Germans sent an investigator to Lakehurst, and at the time he came to what I consider the correct conclusion.  The following is not a quote, but my own words based on all reports read and heard:

On final approach, the helm made an excessively rapid turn that overstressed the airframe, causing a rupture of an aft (rear) gas bag, probably as a result of being slashed by a broken structural wire.  The escape of gas led inevitably to a reduction in buoyancy at the tail, for which the handling crew compensated successfully by releasing aft water ballast and fuel, thereby restoring trim. At this point the crew must have been aware of the gas loss, but obviously couldn't do anything about it.  At least one ground witness with a view of the starboard side of the ship, claimed to have seen St Elmo's fire striking its upper surface.  If correct, this would be a probable source of ignition, which otherwise would have been unlikely. 

There has never been a real mystery surrounding this incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha_Q

I hope this footage allows us to solve this mystery once and for all, so that we may finally develop a safer, more reliable trans-Atlantic dirigible service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Myles ? You were confused? @ChrLzs ? Even you were confused?

Gentlemen, does not a wise critical thinker ask: What is the point of discussing the bearing of evidence except and until one has considered the provenance of the material in question?

Why is it cofusing that I'd be favorably impressed by the caution exhibited documented here, by an expert from private company (not an academic institution)

http://colorlab.com/about.html

whose client is an indpendent scholar (not a faculty member of an acadmic instituton)

https://www.airships.net/about-contact/

?

For comparison, I chose an academic pursuit, whose guild, among its many other other charms, is conspucuously sniffy about independent scholars and non-academic sources of expertise.

Truly, genetlemen, if you have some question about my post, then ask me, and I will answer you as best I can. Meanwhile, I'm the one who's confused.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TrikeTrash

Wanted to see this, recorded it and lasted all of five minutes into the show before I screamed and deleted the damn

thing!  Documentaries are suppose to divulge information, and teach the viewer.  Documentaries are not a platform

for narcissistic closeups of some Dilbert explaining this or that.   Damn selfie generation has ruined everything!

Nova, KMA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scotpens
Posted (edited)

"Previously unseen video footage . . ."

Film, not video. FILM, dammit!

Edited by scotpens
punctuation error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.