Your favourite unsolved mystery?

The Sparrow

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I edited my post, but not quickly enough.

Your eyes adjust to the light. It's not as dark as you may think. It's by no means easy to see, but this is what the lookouts are paid to do. I think it takes about 15 minutes for your eyes to adjust enough to be useful. Unless it happened right at a change over of lookouts, if there were more pairs of binoculars goings around, I reckon at least one person would have seen a shape in the distance and point it out to someone before it was too late.

The problem was that there was loads of light coming off the boat so nobody on it was in darkness but it was pitch black around them so there was no adjusting to the lack of light. There was a BBC doc about the iceberg the other day and they were making this exact point about why the iceberg was spotted so late.

If you were to turn on all the lights in your house and try looking out the window to a completely dark garden, you also wouldn't be able to see anything. It's pretty much the same thing but just on a much larger/ darker scale.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The Sparrow wrote: »

The problem was that there was loads of light coming off the boat so nobody on it was in darkness but it was pitch black around them so there was no adjusting to the lack of light. There was a BBC doc about the iceberg the other day and they were making this exact point about why the iceberg was spotted so late.

If you were to turn on all the lights in your house and try looking out the window to a completely dark garden, you also wouldn't be able to see anything. It's pretty much the same thing but just on a much larger/ darker scale.

Very true, the question remains as to why they were steaming through an icefield. Criminal negligence surely, not to mention the shoddy workmanship she received from the bigoted Harland and Wollf.

admiralofthefleet

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

which came first the chicken or the egg?

the cock!

The Sparrow

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

the cock!

I thought with your username you would be making an insightful point about the sinking of the Titanic discussion!

psychward

danslevent wrote: »

Once my friend was having a really personal, quiet house party for her birthday. Everyone she invited was a close friend and everyone knew each other at the party. My best friend and I, naively, left our cameras on the table that was in the room of the party and the next morning they were gone. We all searched the place for ages looking for them, but they had definitely been stolen. We always wonder who took them, chances are the person who took it was even in the pictures I took that night on my camera. To this day we still have no idea. It isn't the best unsolved mystery, but it is my most personal one!

Aren't most serial killers or rapists known personally to their victims ? I would cancel any camping trips to the woods among that particular group of ''friends'' unless of course you wish to find out personally which is the odd one out lol :pac:

gnfnrhead

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Your right they can be quite big but the sad reality is you can't maneuver a ship like Titanic in the time they had. The correct call from the bridge should have been 'Full Stop' and let her hit, instead they panicked and the chief officer called for the port around.

I agree, it probably would have been safer had they hit it head on. Apparently, the ship was designed so it could take a few flooded cabins but the way it hit the iceberg meant more than the maximum were exposed. Hitting head on would have messed up someone's holiday, but the ship probably could have kept going. At worst it would have stayed up long enough to get everyone safely off.

The Sparrow wrote: »

The problem was that there was loads of light coming off the boat so nobody on it was in darkness but it was pitch black around them so there was no adjusting to the lack of light. There was a BBC doc about the iceberg the other day and they were making this exact point about why the iceberg was spotted so late.

If you were to turn on all the lights in your house and try looking out the window to a completely dark garden, you also wouldn't be able to see anything. It's pretty much the same thing but just on a much larger/ darker scale.

Fair enough. I don't know the specifics of the lighting, all I know is the ships I've been on have also been lit up, and after a short period you can make out shapes. I'm sure with binoculars you could tell what they were. With the naked eye, I could see shapes. Small boats, small islands, that sort of stuff, luckily no icebergs.

cursai

danslevent wrote: »

Once my friend was having a really personal, quiet house party for her birthday. Everyone she invited was a close friend and everyone knew each other at the party. My best friend and I, naively, left our cameras on the table that was in the room of the party and the next morning they were gone. We all searched the place for ages looking for them, but they had definitely been stolen. We always wonder who took them, chances are the person who took it was even in the pictures I took that night on my camera. To this day we still have no idea. It isn't the best unsolved mystery, but it is my most personal one!

Were they really your friends though? Really!

dfx-

The Sparrow wrote: »

It was in the middle of the night... binoculars would have been useless. They only light was coming from the ship so they couldn't see anything around them.

It was a calm clear night and they were trying to look for water splashes off the ice...which wasn't happening. I'm going to guess the iceberg looked a dark grey on the horizon between the dark sky and dark sea surface. Not easy to pick out and as descriptions of it go, it wasn't big in the first place. You can't really go to the bridge "iceberg ahead....maybe....oh no wait it wasn't."

Doc Ruby

dfx- wrote: »

It was a calm clear night and they were trying to look for water splashes off the ice...which wasn't happening. I'm going to guess the iceberg looked a dark grey on the horizon between the dark sky and dark sea surface. Not easy to pick out and as descriptions of it go, it wasn't big in the first place. You can't really go to the bridge "iceberg ahead....maybe....oh no wait it wasn't."

I like the short story which has a cabin boy running to the captain just before the sinking, and the captain gazes across the icy expanse with haunted eyes, saying "I just want to prove them wrong... just once..."

Canard

I actually did my history research topic on Lightoller (Titanic's second officer) - they saw the iceberg, tried to turn the ship in a panic but the ship was actually turned the wrong way. The system of steering was changing to be more logical, like a car - the person who turned it forgot and thought turning the wheel left would turn the ship right.

Lightoller lied at the inquiry into the ship's loss to protect the dead shipmen's reputations and that's why no one ever found out. But then again, maybe even turning the right way wouldnt have saved them.

Wibbs

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I agree, it probably would have been safer had they hit it head on. Apparently, the ship was designed so it could take a few flooded cabins but the way it hit the iceberg meant more than the maximum were exposed. Hitting head on would have messed up someone's holiday, but the ship probably could have kept going. At worst it would have stayed up long enough to get everyone safely off.

I dunno. Slamming at nearly 30Mph straight into a immovable object would have more than messed up your holiday. It might have sent her to the bottom faster. I think they were right to try and steer away. What was stupid was stopping, then reversing the engines. That took too long and stopped the flow of water over the rudder which made it kinda useless. She would have turned faster if they'd gunned it. Given it was only a glancing blow, I reckon if they had not given the reverse engines order she would have missed it.

sunflower27

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno. Slamming at nearly 30Mph straight into a immovable object would have more than messed up your holiday. It might have sent her to the bottom faster. I think they were right to try and steer away. What was stupid was stopping, then reversing the engines. That took too long and stopped the flow of water over the rudder which made it kinda useless. She would have turned faster if they'd gunned it. Given it was only a glancing blow, I reckon if they had not given the reverse engines order she would have missed it.

And we will never know.... unless they build a replica and stage a reconstruction. Actually, I am surprised they didn't do that for the anniversary.... is it too late?????

gnfnrhead

sunflower27 wrote: »

And we will never know.... unless they build a replica and stage a reconstruction. Actually, I am surprised they didn't do that for the anniversary.... is it too late?????

Mythbusters!!!! :pac:

Guess thats the only way we can know for sure. We can all say what we think would have happened but until someone tests it somehow, anyone's theroy could be true.

HenryChinaski

What's the difference between Madeline McCann and a Ferrari? I don't have a Ferrari in my garage!

44leto

HenryChinaski wrote: »

What's the difference between Madeline McCann and a Ferrari? I don't have a Ferrari in my garage!

No mystery there.

DesperateDan

Taken from this smaller thread (not nearly as cool as this one so I thought I'd metion it here ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Calico

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Waratah

I love the use of the term 'foul play' mentioned in the Tara case. What a weird term for murder, wonder where it came from!

psychward

HenryChinaski wrote: »

What's the difference between Madeline McCann and a Ferrari? I don't have a Ferrari in my garage!

Too soon and too well known to be even remotely funny. I think a lot of people feel we know her almost personally almost like family or the kid next door due to the media exposure. She very well could be in someones garage right now. And if I happen to stumble upon this garage, I am confident I can do what I like to her captor and have any judge write it off as temporary insanity which is what it will be until I am finished.

micropig

psychward wrote: »

Too soon and too well known to be even remotely funny. I think a lot of people feel we know her almost personally almost like family or the kid next door due to the media exposure. She very well could be in someones garage right now. And if I happen to stumble upon this garage, I am confident I can do what I like to her captor and have any judge write it off as temporary insanity which is what it will be until I am finished.

Right on dude:p

humberklog

psychward wrote: »

Too soon and too well known to be even remotely funny. I think a lot of people feel we know her almost personally almost like family or the kid next door due to the media exposure. She very well could be in someones garage right now. And if I happen to stumble upon this garage, I am confident I can do what I like to her captor and have any judge write it off as temporary insanity which is what it will be until I am finished.

It would be quite the mystery as to why a judge would write off a premeditated crime as temporary insanity.

But I like the way you flex those muscles. It means a lot.

Jammy Donut

psychward wrote: »

HenryChinaski wrote: »

What's the difference between Madeline McCann and a Ferrari? I don't have a Ferrari in my garage!

Too soon and too well known to be even remotely funny. I think a lot of people feel we know her almost personally almost like family or the kid next door due to the media exposure. She very well could be in someones garage right now. And if I happen to stumble upon this garage, I am confident I can do what I like to her captor and have any judge write it off as temporary insanity which is what it will be until I am finished.

Go-Go PowerRanger!


Calm down dude (Maddy ain't really in his garage)

micropig

humberklog wrote: »

It would be quite the mystery as to why a judge would write off a premeditated crime as temporary insanity.

But I like the way you flex those muscles. It means a lot.

He'd be grand, once he doesn't post about it on the internet first

Would it be better if the joke was about a ford model t?:D


Is that in the garage too?, don't scrape in during the rescue:pac:

humberklog

micropig wrote: »

Would it be better if the joke was about a ford model t?:D

It's way too soon to be making jokes about the Ford Model T. And, well...it's like part of the family to a lot of me/we people.

Delancey

I must be the only person suffering from ' Maddie fatigue ' - case is 5 years old now and frankly it bores the tits off me , papers run silly headlines about ' sightings ' of her which invariably turn out to be pure crap.
Child was almost certainly dead when she left the apartment or within 2 hours of leaving.

It's just boring now............

psychward

Jammy Donut wrote: »

Go-Go PowerRanger!


Calm down dude (Maddy ain't really in his garage)

Powerranger my bollix. Personally I don't find those kind of jokes funny. The potential rape, murder and abduction/kidnapping of small children is not a topic of humour. Maybe it is to someone immature and disconnected from reality. And a lax attitude towards such talk dressed up as humor is probably a cover all over the net for paedos which they use to identify one another via pm and trade information etc. I'm not impressed by it.

micropig

humberklog wrote: »

It's way too soon to be making jokes about the Ford Model T. And, well...it's like part of the family to a lot of me/we people.

You'll find it diagonally parked in a parallel universe.:pac:


Too soon?

micropig

psychward wrote: »

Powerranger my bollix. Personally I don't find those kind of jokes funny. The potential rape, murder and abduction/kidnapping of small children is not a topic of humour. Maybe it is to someone immature and disconnected from reality. And a lax attitude towards such talk dressed up as humor is probably a cover all over the net for paedos which they use to identify one another vis pm and trade information etc. I'm not impressed by it.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:Wow

Jammy Donut

psychward wrote: »

Jammy Donut wrote: »

Go-Go PowerRanger!


Calm down dude (Maddy ain't really in his garage)

Powerranger my bollix. Personally I don't find those kind of jokes funny. The potential rape, murder and abduction/kidnapping of small children is not a topic of humour. Maybe it is to someone immature and disconnected from reality. And a lax attitude towards such talk dressed up as humor is probably a cover all over the net for paedos which they use to identify one another via pm and trade information etc. I'm not impressed by it.

I don't normally PowerRanger someone's bollix on the first date, you didn't even buy me dinner!


Anyway its a bit of black humour, no-one on here is happy it happened..... It happened, people can't change the fact..
Maybe people mask their fear of something similar happening to one of their own by hiding behind a joke? Personally I havn't a clue what it would feel like to be in Maddys parents shows and frankly neither does anyone else.

Actually what pisses me off is the ****e in the papers 'Possible siteing', Parents sueing the papers etc.... Didn't they even write a book on it?

The parents are cashing in on it which I think is a lot more inhuman than a few harmless jokes posted by people sitting behind a keyboard.

We make jokes from things because that's how we deal with it.


I could post another few Maddy jokes iv heard bit I won't

psychward

Jammy Donut wrote: »

I don't normally PowerRanger someone's bollix on the first date, you didn't even buy me dinner!


Anyway its a bit of black humour, no-one on here is happy it happened..... It happened, people can't change the fact..
Maybe people mask their fear of something similar happening to one of their own by hiding behind a joke? Personally I havn't a clue what it would feel like to be in Maddys parents shows and frankly neither does anyone else.

Actually what pisses me off is the ****e in the papers 'Possible siteing', Parents sueing the papers etc.... Didn't they even write a book on it?

The parents are cashing in on it which I think is a lot more inhuman than a few harmless jokes posted by people sitting behind a keyboard.

We make jokes from things because that's how we deal with it.


I could post another few Maddy jokes iv heard bit I won't

Well I guess theres excuses for everything but speaking from my own experience, being the first time dad of a little girl myself I see it as a full time vocation and I will never take my eye off the ball. I won't fall asleep on the job. If you think dangers are a joke then you can be influenced to ignore your responsibilities and take them less seriously. As for the media and Madeline's parents etc for one thing I don't read newspapers any longer. I haven't read them in well over 5 years and replaced them with more educational reading material. And for another thing I am more concerned with Madeline than her parents. However on the whole issue when it surfaces I still find it upsetting whether it is presented to me as a joke or as a serious article.

WoollyRedHat

There's mysterious things going on down in Listonvarna, that's such a great mystery, that none of the locals or the guards have a notion what the mystery might be... some folks say that the mystery is hidden in Listonvarna itself. But old man Connelly says that ain't right, and he should know, since he's 83.

DesperateDan

psychward wrote: »

Well I guess theres excuses for everything but speaking from my own experience, being the first time dad of a little girl myself I see it as a full time vocation and I will never take my eye off the ball. I won't fall asleep on the job. If you think dangers are a joke then you can be influenced to ignore your responsibilities and take them less seriously. As for the media and Madeline's parents etc for one thing I don't read newspapers any longer. I haven't read them in well over 5 years and replaced them with more educational reading material. And for another thing I am more concerned with Madeline than her parents. However on the whole issue when it surfaces I still find it upsetting whether it is presented to me as a joke or as a serious article.

You can't tell me you've never laughed at a joke about the war? The holocaust? 9/11? Catholic paedophilia? These things are all obviously very serious indeed. It doesn't mean we shouldn't look back and ridicule them after a bit of time. If anything it helps many people to move on from the seriousness of it all. Everyone should check out the movie The Aristocrats. It gives an excellent perspective on why we should laugh at these things, and is really funny.