re: Voyage of Noah's ark

Farrell Till (jftill@midwest.net)
Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:33:23 -0600 (CST)

>>TILL
>>>We are not talking about AN expert shipbuilder, Aubrey, but naval
>>architects in general. Go read the books on naval architecture, and see if
>>this is a matter of just "an" expert saying that seaworthy all-wooden ships
>>could not be built beyond the 300-foot barrier. I think you will find that
>>it is a matter of universal agreement among expert naval architects. But,
>>of course, we are supposed to believe you rather than the experts.
>>>
AUBREY
>There were wooden ships built beyond that barrier. Why do you and Michael
>consist on fighting it. I went to the library and I found that the ships
>were in use for years. Now, I suggest you go and tell the Naval experts
>about it, since they didn't know that there were ships beyond the 300'
>limit. You also told me that there were ships beyond that limit, but they
>were confined to coastal duty. I proved to you the logs that showed that
>the Great Republic made regular overseas trips as did the others. Didn't you
>remember that I told you to record what you said? You guys tend to forget
>what you said and now you are trying to distort the facts. It won't work.
>The cat is out of the hat, and it was you who confirned the wooden ships
>over 300' over two weeks ago. Now why are you changing yur story?
>Aubrey

TILL
Aubrey, you can't be so stupid that you just can't remember that we have
admitted that there were all-wooden ships longer than 300 feet that were not
seaworthy, so I have to assume that you are either being dishonest or else
you are embarrassed by information that you cannot respond to. I'm sure if
we went back through the postings, we would find that we have informed you
at least a dozen times that the Great Republic cannot be cited as an example
of an all-wooden ship that was longer than 300 feet, because tons of iron
and steel were used in building it. Even then, it proved to be unseaworthy.
One deck was cut down to try to reduce the problem, but even then it was
unable to withstand a storm at sea. So what you are arguing is that a ship
made of both wood and iron, which was a hundred feet shorter than the ark,
and which sank in a storm, is proof that a 450-foot all-wooden ark could
have withstood the shearing and hogging stresses of the storms that it had
to ride through.

Now either cite an example of an all-wooden ship longer than 300 feet that
was able to maintain a watertight hull and had no problems with snaking and
hogging or else be honest and admit that you can't find an example.

Also, I'm curious to know why you are being so silent about the postings
that Fisher has made about encyclopedic information on the iron age.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.