Hello,

Quote:

I’m not sure who you’re addressing here, but speaking for myself I’ve never limited myself to viewing internet sites. I am also well aware that there are many institutes and researchers conducting research into the Titanic’s sinking. I do wonder where you got the impression that the other participants of this thread were ignorant as to the research being done at the moment.

Quote:

I’m aware of this symposium, although I didn’t attend myself.

Quote:

I’m not sure what relevance this has to the discussion about which watertight doors were open and the float mechanism? Or are you addressing another set of arguments? With regard to the merits of careful reading, I agree. As a friendly suggestion, proofreading your post might have eliminated errors such as Commioner's, Inquirey, and computized.

Quote:

Who are you addressing, what is the point you are trying to convey, and which debate are you referring to?

Quote:

I am aware of the thrust of Captain Erik Wood’s research. Indeed, I’ve shared my own research material with him – and have done so since either 2001 or 2002. We have corresponded, on and off, via e-mail for several years.

Quote:

I really don’t see quite how your points are relevant to the debate we’ve been having, which centred around the number of watertight doors that were open, and the idea that water passed through open watertight doors (which is not correct in light of what we know about the float mechanism)?

The issue of the watertight doors being open (as in those toward the after end of the ship) is really not relevant to the debate about the collision/allision with the iceberg. As it happens, I would not want to comment on Captain Wood’s research without seeing the totality of his arguments. However, I do think there is a lot of merit in the arguments of Captain Brown as to the possibility of a grounding. And I have seen a lot of merit in what I have seen of Captain Wood’s research.

Best wishes,

Mark.