|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 2:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
And all the while the prosecutors can't round up the ferry owners. Are those dudes that slick or are the prosecutors that incompetent or does the cult have an in with them?
It would be interesting if they decide to storm the church to find them. It should be no problem; they've got busloads full of riot police. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| radish kimchi wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| radish kimchi wrote: |
They need to make a pathway instead of relying on radars. |
Are you proposing that people should start cutting a path into ocean waters?
Or are you saying that we should drop tens of thousands of lighted buoys attached to anchors into the ocean floor? Like into 5,000 meter waters? Environmental impacts anyone?
Wow. |
How come we can destroy land and build roads, but water is off limits? |
"They" made pathways in the ocean decades ago.
Vessels do not rely on radar to follow a path in the ocean.
Radar is used to identify vessels and land within the operating range of the radar.
To establish a pathway, vessels use GPS and electronic chart plotters.
Prior to the invention of GPS, the LORAN system was used to establish pathways.
Vessels can follow established pathways, and they can create any pathway they want to follow by setting electronic waypoints, and following the waypoints using the electronics.
This is basic procedure that has existed for decades.
In this case, the ferry crew did not follow the regular established course.
This could be intentionally, or by default of not following the heading indicated by the instruments.
All commercial ships have electronic navigation instruments. Most vessels including smaller boats have electronic navigation instruments.
In addition, there are depth indicating instruments, and nautical charts showing depths of all areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
The chance of it striking a rock is virtually nil. |
South Korea ferry disaster: What we know about Sewol's sinking
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-17/south-korea-ferry-disaster-sewol-what-we-know/5397570
Marine salvage expert John Noble said the ship was travelling at about 18 knots and may have hit the seabed or a shipping container.
"There is a lot of evidence... that the ship hit something," he said.
"There was a thump or a thud and this would suggest that she came into contact either with the seabed or a submerged object like perhaps a container."
Why Did South Korean Ferry Sink? Dominant Theory Emerges
http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-south-korean-ferry-sink-dominant-theory-emerges-nearly-300-people-missing-photos-1572802
Peter Boynton, a retired U.S. Coast Guard captain, explained to CNN that the speed at which the ferry took on water suggests it suffered outside damage.
Some survivors said they heard a loud thump before the ship began to sink. Boynton said it could have been from cargo moving or "some other internal damage.” He added: "But it does sound, from initial reports, it was more likely that something was struck."
Mary Schiavo, former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, told CNN that fog could have led to the ferry heading off course and striking an object.
"So if they hit something, that would have meant they were out of the channel, which is quite easy to do. ... What people don't see when they look at the glassy expanse is underneath, there are intricate and detailed channels maintained. If it got out of the channel, it could have hit something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
The chance of it striking a rock is virtually nil. |
South Korea ferry disaster: What we know about Sewol's sinking
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-17/south-korea-ferry-disaster-sewol-what-we-know/5397570
Marine salvage expert John Noble said the ship was travelling at about 18 knots and may have hit the seabed or a shipping container.
"There is a lot of evidence... that the ship hit something," he said.
"There was a thump or a thud and this would suggest that she came into contact either with the seabed or a submerged object like perhaps a container."
Why Did South Korean Ferry Sink? Dominant Theory Emerges
http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-south-korean-ferry-sink-dominant-theory-emerges-nearly-300-people-missing-photos-1572802
Peter Boynton, a retired U.S. Coast Guard captain, explained to CNN that the speed at which the ferry took on water suggests it suffered outside damage.
Some survivors said they heard a loud thump before the ship began to sink. Boynton said it could have been from cargo moving or "some other internal damage.” He added: "But it does sound, from initial reports, it was more likely that something was struck."
Mary Schiavo, former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, told CNN that fog could have led to the ferry heading off course and striking an object.
"So if they hit something, that would have meant they were out of the channel, which is quite easy to do. ... What people don't see when they look at the glassy expanse is underneath, there are intricate and detailed channels maintained. If it got out of the channel, it could have hit something. |
This is why waiting for information to come in and not going to the rumor mill are important-
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2014/05/15/6/0302000000AEN20140515006200315F.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_MV_Sewol#Obsoleted_theories |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_MV_Sewol#Obsoleted_theories
There is no named author of the Wikipedia article.
There are no names attributed to some of the opinions referred to.
One opinion is of Gong Gil-young (Korean: 공길영), a professor of aviation. Aviation instead of ships? it doesn't make sense to use an aviation expert when you could use a maritime expert.
There is no knowing who wrote the Wikipedia article and what their agenda is. There are many articles written by journalists containing technically incorrect information regarding the Sewol.
Wikipedia does conclude that the ship did make an extreme sudden turn. But it does not explain what caused the turn.
It is impossible for a ship to make an extreme turn on its own. Ships don't do that because they can't. There is no ship on the planet that can make a sharp and sudden turn on its own.
The only way it could be is that the bow hit bottom causing it to suddenly turn. The ship suddenly jolted and quickly started to list.
The forward motion of the ship was interrupted because it hit bottom.
A falling container, nor anything else could not cause that to happen.
If you look at the photo of the bulbous bow sticking out of the water, you will see a large black mark, starting from the front of the bulbous bow, and along the side for a ways.
This is from the bow scraping against something.
It couldn't be from scraping against metal, then it would be crushed.
It would need to be scraping against the muddy bottom.
It really doesn't matter what it says in Wikipedia, if it can not possibly be true.
Coast Guard captains, Department of Transportation authorities, and various other maritime authorities do not constitute a rumor mill.
You are welcome to believe the Wikipedia article, but it is written by an anonymous journalist, referring to unnamed people's opinions and it is not correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
The chance of it striking a rock is virtually nil. |
South Korea ferry disaster: What we know about Sewol's sinking
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-17/south-korea-ferry-disaster-sewol-what-we-know/5397570
Marine salvage expert John Noble said the ship was travelling at about 18 knots and may have hit the seabed or a shipping container.
"There is a lot of evidence... that the ship hit something," he said.
"There was a thump or a thud and this would suggest that she came into contact either with the seabed or a submerged object like perhaps a container."
Why Did South Korean Ferry Sink? Dominant Theory Emerges
http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-south-korean-ferry-sink-dominant-theory-emerges-nearly-300-people-missing-photos-1572802
Peter Boynton, a retired U.S. Coast Guard captain, explained to CNN that the speed at which the ferry took on water suggests it suffered outside damage.
Some survivors said they heard a loud thump before the ship began to sink. Boynton said it could have been from cargo moving or "some other internal damage.” He added: "But it does sound, from initial reports, it was more likely that something was struck."
Mary Schiavo, former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, told CNN that fog could have led to the ferry heading off course and striking an object.
"So if they hit something, that would have meant they were out of the channel, which is quite easy to do. ... What people don't see when they look at the glassy expanse is underneath, there are intricate and detailed channels maintained. If it got out of the channel, it could have hit something. |
Nothing says conclusive like the words "may", "could", and "if".
Those authorities you listed have no first hand information and are not part of the investigative team. They are just experts offering theories.
Also, your "expert" witness suggests that it might have been a shipping container. A theory you denounce because it "couldn't be scraping against metal". So either YOU or YOUR EXPERT is wrong or maybe both. Your second expert also suggests that cargo could still be an explanation.
| Quote: |
If you look at the photo of the bulbous bow sticking out of the water, you will see a large black mark, starting from the front of the bulbous bow, and along the side for a ways.
This is from the bow scraping against something.
It couldn't be from scraping against metal, then it would be crushed.
It would need to be scraping against the muddy bottom.
It really doesn't matter what it says in Wikipedia, if it can not possibly be true. |
Are you saying that you have information that the black mark there has been tested and confirmed as mud from the sea bottom?
And again, the article from Yonhap, Korea's semi-state news agency from today, said it was the turn.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2014/05/15/6/0302000000AEN20140515006200315F.html
Now, do you have any conclusive evidence from official sources that corroborates the reef theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
The chance of it striking a rock is virtually nil. |
South Korea ferry disaster: What we know about Sewol's sinking
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-17/south-korea-ferry-disaster-sewol-what-we-know/5397570
Marine salvage expert John Noble said the ship was travelling at about 18 knots and may have hit the seabed or a shipping container.
"There is a lot of evidence... that the ship hit something," he said.
"There was a thump or a thud and this would suggest that she came into contact either with the seabed or a submerged object like perhaps a container."
Why Did South Korean Ferry Sink? Dominant Theory Emerges
http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-south-korean-ferry-sink-dominant-theory-emerges-nearly-300-people-missing-photos-1572802
Peter Boynton, a retired U.S. Coast Guard captain, explained to CNN that the speed at which the ferry took on water suggests it suffered outside damage.
Some survivors said they heard a loud thump before the ship began to sink. Boynton said it could have been from cargo moving or "some other internal damage.” He added: "But it does sound, from initial reports, it was more likely that something was struck."
Mary Schiavo, former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, told CNN that fog could have led to the ferry heading off course and striking an object.
"So if they hit something, that would have meant they were out of the channel, which is quite easy to do. ... What people don't see when they look at the glassy expanse is underneath, there are intricate and detailed channels maintained. If it got out of the channel, it could have hit something. |
Nothing says conclusive like the words "may", "could", and "if".
Those authorities you listed have no first hand information and are not part of the investigative team. They are just experts offering theories.
Also, your "expert" witness suggests that it might have been a shipping container. A theory you denounce because it "couldn't be scraping against metal". So either YOU or YOUR EXPERT is wrong or maybe both. Your second expert also suggests that cargo could still be an explanation.
| Quote: |
If you look at the photo of the bulbous bow sticking out of the water, you will see a large black mark, starting from the front of the bulbous bow, and along the side for a ways.
This is from the bow scraping against something.
It couldn't be from scraping against metal, then it would be crushed.
It would need to be scraping against the muddy bottom.
It really doesn't matter what it says in Wikipedia, if it can not possibly be true. |
Are you saying that you have information that the black mark there has been tested and confirmed as mud from the sea bottom?
And again, the article from Yonhap, Korea's semi-state news agency from today, said it was the turn.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2014/05/15/6/0302000000AEN20140515006200315F.html
Now, do you have any conclusive evidence from official sources that corroborates the reef theory? |
Steelrails,
There is one reason why I would quote a post of yours.
The reason is not to debate you.
The reason is to provide alternate information to anyone else who may be interested.
Yes the ship suddenly jolted and turned.
But its like a coroner saying a person died from asphyxiation, without explaining that condition causing the death was a result of being strangled.
A large ship has a turning radius that requires a great distance to make a turn. Not only does it require a great distance, it requires a lot of time. It applies to any large ship. It can not suddenly jolt and turn on its own.
You are welcome to believe otherwise, its your prerogative to believe whatever you wish.
There are so many technically incorrect things published by official sources about the ferry sinking, a book could be written about it.
Go ahead and believe any and all so called official sources that you desire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
guavashake, your own sources do not in any way, shape, or form state that striking a rock caused this accident.
The testimony released so far indicates that the watch officer ordered a a small turn and when this happened, that's when everything started. For the crew, it did not begin with a sudden jolt.
There is nothing within the last 3 weeks from any news source reporting on the reef collision theory. It's all been focused on excessive cargo, not securely loaded.
What exactly is the foundation for your claim beyond "a ship can't do that"? Frankly dude, it sounds like you're veering into 9/11 conspiracy theory type reasoning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
guavashake, your own sources do not in any way, shape, or form state that striking a rock caused this accident.
The testimony released so far indicates that the watch officer ordered a a small turn and when this happened, that's when everything started. For the crew, it did not begin with a sudden jolt.
There is nothing within the last 3 weeks from any news source reporting on the reef collision theory. It's all been focused on excessive cargo, not securely loaded.
What exactly is the foundation for your claim beyond "a ship can't do that"? Frankly dude, it sounds like you're veering into 9/11 conspiracy theory type reasoning. |
Look at the second post on this page. I know more than a little about ships, and anyone else who does will tell you the same thing.
Now you resort to the time honored practice of character assassination.
You are not much of an assassin, but you are a perfect example of an ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guavashake wrote: |
Look at the second post on this page. I know more than a little about ships, and anyone else who does will tell you the same thing.
Now you resort to the time honored practice of character assassination.
You are not much of an assassin, but you are a perfect example of an ass. |
The second post has two experts from an article originally published on CNN, on April 17th. This was one day after the accident.
Your first expert, Peter Boynton, does not discount the theory of shifting cargo-
"Some survivors said they heard a loud thump before the ship began to sink. Boynton said it could have been from cargo moving or "some other internal damage.” "
Your second expert, Mary Schiavo, also listed engine failures or explosions as possibilities in addition to your reef-collision theory. None of your experts in any way, shape, or form conclusively endorses reef-collision. One of them is open to the theory of shifting cargo.
I have a couple of questions for you-
1. Why has no major news organization published anything related to reef-collision within the last 3 weeks?
2. Why have no independent, western sources come forward within the last couple of weeks to counter the theory that it was shifting cargo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| guavashake wrote: |
Look at the second post on this page. I know more than a little about ships, and anyone else who does will tell you the same thing.
Now you resort to the time honored practice of character assassination.
You are not much of an assassin, but you are a perfect example of an ass. |
The second post has two experts from an article originally published on CNN, on April 17th. This was one day after the accident.
Your first expert, Peter Boynton, does not discount the theory of shifting cargo-
"Some survivors said they heard a loud thump before the ship began to sink. Boynton said it could have been from cargo moving or "some other internal damage.” "
Your second expert, Mary Schiavo, also listed engine failures or explosions as possibilities in addition to your reef-collision theory. None of your experts in any way, shape, or form conclusively endorses reef-collision. One of them is open to the theory of shifting cargo.
I have a couple of questions for you-
1. Why has no major news organization published anything related to reef-collision within the last 3 weeks?
2. Why have no independent, western sources come forward within the last couple of weeks to counter the theory that it was shifting cargo? |
I have some questions for you...
1. Why would you not understand I said I am not interested in debating?
2. Why would anyone use a juvenile fantasy avatar, as you do, and expect to be taken seriously?
3. Why would you want to believe news actors who produce reality TV and writers who publish dramatic literature, and call themselves journalists reporting the news, when their purpose is to act as megaphones to transmit ruling elite propaganda, and much of it turns out to be false ?
Last edited by guavashake on Thu May 15, 2014 5:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. Why would you not understand I said I am not interested in debating?
|
Fine, but don't expect someone not to criticize your grossly inaccurate interpretation of articles. You're not providing information, you're providing misinterpretation and innuendo.
| Quote: |
| 2. Why would anyone use a juvenile fantasy avatar, as you do, and expect to be taken seriously? |
The point of the avatar is to not take myself or have anyone else take me THAT seriously.
| Quote: |
| 3. Why would you want to believe news actors who produce reality TV and writers who publish dramatic literature, and call themselves journalists reporting the news, when their purpose is to act as megaphones to transmit ruling elite propaganda? |
What vested interest is their in the "ruling elite" blaming a sudden turn vs. hitting a reef? You do realize that the area is filled with boats. If there was indeed this mystic reef that you speak of, don't you think it would have a bunch of people taking pictures of it? Or did the ruling elites unearth it and haul it off in the middle of the night? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
1. Why would you not understand I said I am not interested in debating?
|
Fine, but don't expect someone not to criticize your grossly inaccurate interpretation of articles. You're not providing information, you're providing misinterpretation and innuendo.
| Quote: |
| 2. Why would anyone use a juvenile fantasy avatar, as you do, and expect to be taken seriously? |
The point of the avatar is to not take myself or have anyone else take me THAT seriously.
| Quote: |
| 3. Why would you want to believe news actors who produce reality TV and writers who publish dramatic literature, and call themselves journalists reporting the news, when their purpose is to act as megaphones to transmit ruling elite propaganda? |
What vested interest is their in the "ruling elite" blaming a sudden turn vs. hitting a reef? You do realize that the area is filled with boats. If there was indeed this mystic reef that you speak of, don't you think it would have a bunch of people taking pictures of it? Or did the ruling elites unearth it and haul it off in the middle of the night? |
One more question, do you realize you appear more juvenile and ignorant each time you post?
The ship continued to travel after it hit bottom, and the bottom was the bottom, as in under the surface.
I didn't speak of a mystic reef, you ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guavashake wrote: |
One more question, do you realize you appear more juvenile and ignorant each time you post?
The ship continued to travel after it hit bottom, and the bottom was the bottom, as in under the surface.
I didn't speak of a mystic reef, you ass. |
Okay, can you provide a depth chart of the area in which it sank, so I can compare it to the draft of the ship?
And again, why has no other person or media outlet come out with this information? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vianca
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: a Korean woman in Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2014 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
=============
Last edited by Vianca on Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
