V Break Theory

[Thomas Krom]

also when you finish the list I would love to see it also I do think they have 50% of the ship done so at least they have something to show for it right

While the full report will be finished this summer I can send you the parts I wrote however I must warn you that it's still a work in progress and some of the sources of the report haven't been written down just yet.

A pal of mine is writing his part on the angles and lists the ship had during the sinking, which is omitted from it for as the moment

 

[James T. Shorter]

While the full report will be finished this summer I can send you the parts I wrote however I must warn you that it's still a work in progress and some of the sources of the report haven't been written down just yet.

A pal of mine is writing his part on the angles and lists the ship had during the sinking, which is omitted from it for as the moment

That would be great! I am exited to read it.

 

[Bob Read]

That would be great! I am exited to read it.

Those who can, do. Those who can’t are inveterate critics.

 

[James T. Shorter]

Those who can, do. Those who can’t are inveterate critics.

What do you mean?

 

[Bob Read]

What do you mean?

Beware of evaluations of those whose only accomplishment is criticism.

 

[Thomas Krom]

Beware of evaluations of those whose only accomplishment is criticism.

While I leave the opinion of what I am to others I personally don't believe that label would apply to me Dr. Read if you intended to pay lip service to me with that, after all I help people with questions, solve problems and debunk misconceptions as well as making new discoveries once in a while regarding the Titanic.


If the report we are writing is considered criticism it isn't my intention at all to bring down the team (despite some personal resentments I have based on what happened in 2021) but to help the team to improve further animations in the future as a memorial to the 1496 victims of the disaster and to assure there are no misconceptions based on the evidence there is in their memory. And I believe we can both agree on if accuracy is intended to be achieved sometimes constructive criticism will be given with good intentions.

 

[James T. Shorter]

Beware of evaluations of those whose only accomplishment is criticism.

I will thank you

 

[chrismireya]

Beware of evaluations of those whose only accomplishment is criticism.

Criticism and scrutiny aren't bad things. In fact, the opening of one's findings and conclusions for peer review is considered VITAL for real science, engineering and historical analysis. In fact, scientists and engineers welcome it because the fundamental basis of science and engineering is observation and replication. Successful replication or critiqued analysis provides merit and credibility to theories and assertions.

I like both THG and Titanic Animations. I think that Titanic Animations made a solid effort in pointing out the problems with using "eyewitness testimony" because the eyewitness claims were often in conflict with one another.

Consequently, those who endeavor to come up with a "definitive" theory of the sinking will always be left with alternative (and outlier) eyewitnesses. So, any conclusive depiction of the sinking forces the analysts to do several difficult things. They must sift through eyewitness testimony, determine which claims are the most credible, determine which testimony is part of a more realistic consensus of credible claims and determine which of those claims are substantiated by both the wreckage itself AND the very laws of physics.

This is why the "V break theory" is so easily debunked. The proponents of it are proverbially "straining a gnat but swallowing a camel." They piece together "outlier" testimony (or a drawing or two) and then piece it together with a theory that violates what we find in the wreckage AND the very laws of physics.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Criticism and scrutiny aren't bad things. In fact, the opening of one's findings and conclusions for peer review is considered VITAL for real science, engineering and historical analysis. In fact, scientists and engineers welcome it because the fundamental basis of science and engineering is observation and replication. Successful replication or critiqued analysis provides merit and credibility to theories and assertions.

Well said.

 

[Bob Read]

Chrismireya wrote: “Criticism and scrutiny aren't bad things.” Agreed. However, if the criticism always comes from someone whose positive contributions are sparse to the point of being nearly non-existent, then they end up being received as “sour grapes” because the critic can’t produce anything of worth himself where his work would also be subject to criticism.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

The sinking animation from 2016 was claimed to have been made in less than 2 weeks (10 days if my memory serves right). however I have to disagree with the statement regarding that states they represent "the best evidence available at the time" if one looks at their most recent animation. Presently a few pals and myself are working on a list to show what is inaccurate.

First: Claimed by who? What is their source of information?

As to the second, by all means, work on that list to show what's inaccurate. I met and got to know these people at the 2018 Titanic Conference in Pigeon Forge. They want to make it better and as accurate as the existing evidence will make possible.

The catch, of course, is that there are ambiguities and uncertainties which I expect will never go away, so nothing is going to be 100%.

 

[Thomas Krom]

First: Claimed by who? What is their source of information?

I believe either it was either Tom Lynskey (when he was still part of the team), Matthew DeWinkeleer or Kyle Hudak who once stated in a livestream that it was made in less than two weeks, I believe it was Kyle who stated it was. But it did came from the team.

As to the second, by all means, work on that list to show what's inaccurate.

I will make sure it will be completed next month, since it it's all for the greater good after all.

I met and got to know these people at the 2018 Titanic Conference in Pigeon Forge. They want to make it better and as accurate as the existing evidence will make possible.

I remember watching the livestream of that conference when I was on holiday in German. However, I must admit that the team is a lot different now. Their goals have shifted and their producer Tom Lynskey (who was an outstanding spokesperson too) left the project in 2020 (he's doing very well however).

The catch, of course, is that there are ambiguities and uncertainties which I expect will never go away, so nothing is going to be 100%.

That is something I keep in mind in the report, I state sources and everything for every claim made that is made in it since it's easy to claim things without basis.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I believe it was Kyle who stated it was. But it did came from the team.

Fair enough. I was aware of the parting of the ways but the dynamics were a bit murky.

I saw Tom and Emily back in 2021 for that conference. They didn't make it to last years gathering because Emily was a few weeks away from having their son.
The rest are still carrying on with the project. I'm not sure if it'll be wildly successful as a game but it'll one hell of a useful research tool. When I tried that VR oculus, for all practical intents and purposes, I was there, on the Titanic, in 1912.
It was that good!

 

[Steven Christian]

While I leave the opinion of what I am to others I personally don't believe that label would apply to me Dr. Read if you intended to pay lip service to me with that, after all I help people with questions, solve problems and debunk misconceptions as well as making new discoveries once in a while regarding the Titanic.


If the report we are writing is considered criticism it isn't my intention at all to bring down the team (despite some personal resentments I have based on what happened in 2021) but to help the team to improve further animations in the future as a memorial to the 1496 victims of the disaster and to assure there are no misconceptions based on the evidence there is in their memory. And I believe we can both agree on if accuracy is intended to be achieved sometimes constructive criticism will be given with good intentions.

For whats it worth I have appreciated your posts on this board. I find them informative. Never seen you being a jerk when you disagree with someone including myself. Cheers.

 

[James T. Shorter]

For whats it worth I have appreciated your posts on this board. I find them informative. Never seen you being a jerk when you disagree with someone including myself. Cheers.

I agree