Sorry, but you're full of baloney. The Constitution had a major refit in
the 1970s so she would not have been in such condition. I know for a
fact that she had a Navy crew throughout the 1980s because that's when I
was in the U.S. Navy.

Now, why should anybody here believe anything you say, when you tell
such lies?

DSK

Navigator wrote:

83-88.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

I visited her quite often on my walks around her. There were
certainly no naval personnel there in my day.



When was this?

DSK

Say what you like but I was there and you weren't. I don't know about a
refit more than a decade before that (how extensive was it I wonder?)
but I _was_ there when she was chained up opposite Phillips in the then
new inner harbor. Initially she was in good shape but no maintence was
done as far as I could see. Over the next 15 years (or so) she decayed
to the point where she had to be dismsted and steel bands placed around
her to ship her splitting open across the middle -which was also partly
due to the change in hogging stress when the masts were removed. As she
was splitting opoen serious fire pumps were put on to try to stop her
sinking and still the State and Government argued about who should pay.
Now, I can't remember any Navy crew on board -just a civilian
shop/museum. The people taking tourists around were dressed like
civilians. These are FACTS. She was described as a 'Corpse' and everyone
who knew her was appalled at the way the buck was being passed around
for her massive repair bill. If only they had maintained her...

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Sorry, but you're full of baloney. The Constitution had a major refit in
the 1970s so she would not have been in such condition. I know for a
fact that she had a Navy crew throughout the 1980s because that's when I
was in the U.S. Navy.

Now, why should anybody here believe anything you say, when you tell
such lies?

DSK

Navigator wrote:
Say what you like but I was there and you weren't.

Oh, really?

Look here

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq68-2.htm

and here

http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org...hronology.html

or

http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/historyupdat.htm

In the early 1970s, the ship was given a major rebuild & refit. In 1976,
the Constitution was part of OpSail, tall ships parade, and was given
huge amounts of publicity.

You claim that less than ten years later, she was held together by metal
straps (funny how the people discussing intricate details of her
rebuilding fail to mention that), kept afloat by pumps (they don't
mention that either), not manned (maybe the Navy officers & men
stationed aboard would like to know about this) and closed to the public
(why do they say it was in fact open & on display?).

According to the Navy and several maritime historical societies, none of
what you've said is true. Anybody can verify it by simply emailing any
of the above web sites.

Navvie, did you think we were stupid enough to fall for this? A pack of
lies from start to finish.... or were you "just trolling" again?


but I _was_ there

Oh yeah, sure. And you gave the Pope advice on millinery, too.

DSK

DSK wrote in message .. .
Navigator wrote:
Say what you like but I was there and you weren't.

Oh, really?

Look here

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq68-2.htm

and here

http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org...hronology.html

or

http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/historyupdat.htm

Thanks for all the great links Doug!
It clearly shows that Nav is a liar and will do everything he can to
try to put down the USA and it history.

he has become like the French and several other brainwashed morons
that are extremly jelious of the USA. They sit around a whin about how
bad we are and totally dis-regard the truth in an effort to build up
his national pride.

It's a pitiful shame. Counties so bad off that the only way they can
make themselfs look good is by lying about others. He should be a
politician.



In the early 1970s, the ship was given a major rebuild & refit. In 1976,
the Constitution was part of OpSail, tall ships parade, and was given
huge amounts of publicity.

yelp... RedCloud made her madien voyage to NY from Jolly ol just to
be a part of the parade.



You claim that less than ten years later, she was held together by metal
straps (funny how the people discussing intricate details of her
rebuilding fail to mention that), kept afloat by pumps (they don't
mention that either), not manned (maybe the Navy officers & men
stationed aboard would like to know about this) and closed to the public
(why do they say it was in fact open & on display?).

Because he is a habitual liar.


According to the Navy and several maritime historical societies, none of
what you've said is true. Anybody can verify it by simply emailing any
of the above web sites.

Navvie, did you think we were stupid enough to fall for this? A pack of
lies from start to finish.... or were you "just trolling" again?


Navie is stupid enough to fall for his own lies, so he thinks we will
fall for them as well.


but I _was_ there

In his wet dreams Doug.

Joe





Oh yeah, sure. And you gave the Pope advice on millinery, too.


DSK

DSK wrote:
Navigator wrote:

Say what you like but I was there and you weren't.


Oh, really?

Look here

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq68-2.htm

and here

http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org...hronology.html

or

http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/historyupdat.htm

In the early 1970s, the ship was given a major rebuild & refit. In 1976,
the Constitution was part of OpSail, tall ships parade, and was given
huge amounts of publicity.

You claim that less than ten years later, she was held together by metal
straps (funny how the people discussing intricate details of her
rebuilding fail to mention that), kept afloat by pumps (they don't
mention that either), not manned (maybe the Navy officers & men
stationed aboard would like to know about this) and closed to the public
(why do they say it was in fact open & on display?).


Doug here's some maths: 1988 is not 'less than ten years' after 1976. I
also did not say that the straps were in place in 1988! You are soooo
desperate to discredit me you must be wetting yourself. The fact is that
the defects in her structure manifest by hogging and opening amidships
were started in her earlier repairs and were not addressed in the refit
you talked about. I spotted the problems quite early on -I could see
seams starting to open that were just painted over.

http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn8.htm#H2

"In 1994 the Navy surveyed Constellation and found her to be in very
poor condition. One officer reported that he could easily plunge his
finger through some of her major beams, due to the advanced state of
decay. Among other problems, she was leaking 1200 gallons a day and had
suffered 35 inches of hog. She was promptly closed to the public, and
all rigging and guns were removed. The frail hull was temporarily
supported by a network of steel cables and slings to hold her in her
proper shape until she could be drydocked."

Note the pumps and steel cables and hogging problems -as I said! And I
also petitioned for her proper repair earlier than that!

An apology from you would be in order.

Cheers

Navigator wrote:
Doug here's some maths: 1988 is not 'less than ten years' after 1976

True, but you said 1983 to 1988.

I assume this is a backpedal?

.... I
also did not say that the straps were in place in 1988!

So this is *definitely* a major backpedal.

You did in fact say so, I asked you specifically "when" and you said 83
to 88... want to check the Google archive? You can lie freely about many
things, but you cannot lie about what you have posted. At least, not and
get away with it.


... The fact is that
the defects in her structure manifest by hogging and opening amidships
were started in her earlier repairs and were not addressed in the refit
you talked about. I spotted the problems quite early on -I could see
seams starting to open that were just painted over.

http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn8.htm#H2

"In 1994 the Navy surveyed Constellation and found her to be in very
poor condition.

Actually, this is true but not the whole story by far

The plans for the 1992-1997 refit began as early as 1990, when a series
of inspections and surveys were carried out.


... Among other problems, she was leaking 1200 gallons a day and had
suffered 35 inches of hog.

Dude, that doesn't even begin to require "fire pumps" to keep her
afloat. A good fire pump will throw over 1200 gallons per minute. You
said she had several going 24/7

In other words, you were just making up impressive sounding BS... or
"lying," as some people call it.



.... She was promptly closed to the public, and
all rigging and guns were removed.

And this was in 1994? She had already begun her refit according to your
own source. You said her masts were removed between 1983 and 1988

Oh and what about the lack of naval personnel?

What about being closed to the public between 1983 and 1988?

BTW the 35" of hogging is also inaccurate, I have other sources
(unfortunately not on line, but I can give ISDN numbers) that not only
discuss the issue in detail but have photographs of the hull in drydock
with measurement templates in place. They show the hogging to be between
14" and 15"

But who's counting? The fact that hull was hogged is not in dispute. I
am only presenting accurate info to show up your blatant lies.


An apology from you would be in order.

Negative. You've been busted hard and you're scraping the bottom of the
barrel, pretending that you meant over six years later and were talking
about the preparations for her refit.

BTW Thomas Gilmer, whom you called incompetent, was working on the
Constitution project from back in the late 1980s. Among other things he
worked over the plans to determine the distortion of her hull shape. He
also wrote a book about the Constitution, covering her history and her
recent rebuild & refit. You might benefit from checking it out, try
inter library loan. There is an excellent discussion of structural
issues & hulls as girders.

One thing that Gilmer discusses extensively that this reference glosses
over is the structural rebuild. Know what a rider knee is? They were on
the original plans (which BTW do exist and were referenced) but
apparently never installed. They were fitted during the 1992-1996
rebuild. I guess defense contractors haven't changed.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Doug here's some maths: 1988 is not 'less than ten years' after 1976


True, but you said 1983 to 1988.

I assume this is a backpedal?

.... I also did not say that the straps were in place in 1988!


So this is *definitely* a major backpedal.

You did in fact say so, I asked you specifically "when" and you said 83
to 88... want to check the Google archive? You can lie freely about many
things, but you cannot lie about what you have posted. At least, not and
get away with it.

I was answering your question about when I lived in Baltimore. So it was
not a lie was it? C'mon try again the record does not lie but you do
-frequently.

Navigator wrote:

83-88.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

I visited her quite often on my walks around her. There were
certainly no naval personnel there in my day.


When was this?

DSK


Cheers

feel compelled to make up lies:


BTW Thomas Gilmer, whom you called incompetent,


No, I never mentioned Gilmer and never called him incompetant. So why
does he do it?

Cheers

So I'm sitting in the dentist's chair this afternoon trying to will my mind as
far as possible from my body and I start contemplating Nav's old comments. They
just don't fit in with my recollections of the Constitution.

I don't recall any metal bands around her. She wasn't sinking. There were
always Navy personal - its a working Navy base, after all (sort of).

Phillips? There's no "Phillips" near the Constitution. And she was never moved
around the harbor, she was always at Pier 1. And there's no Key St. in Boston.
But wait! There's a Key Highway in Baltimore. And a Phillips Restaurant right
near where they keep the ... wait for it ... The Constellation!

Nav was all along confusing the Constitution for the Constellation! But isn't
that an easy mistake? Weren't they sister ships? Well, not really.

For those who don't know the story, there's a ship in Baltimore Harbor that has
been billed as the original Constellation, a smaller version of the
Constitution, launched in 1797. However, it turned out to be a hoax. The
original Constellation was broken up in Norfolk in 1853, and a new ship, of
larger proportions, was built in 1855 and given the name Constellation. Recent
inspection has proven that the framing is completely different from the
original, so any claim that the new ship was some form of refit of the original
is simply bogus. At some later point someone actually rebuilt the new
Constellation to resemble the original, and the hoax was adopted well meaning
folks in Baltimore. They now admit there is little or no connection between the
ships.

It is true that the new Constellation is in pretty sad shape - I felt a bit
embarrassed walking around it knowing we had the real thing in Boston. And I
suppose she deserves a spot in our history, but she is NOT Old Ironsides!

Does anyone think that nav knows anything about the Constitution? BWAHAHAHA!

-jeff

Was it 1983? Was it 1988? Was it 1994?

It's all so confusing, especially to a man who has worked as a naval
architect's apprentice but cannot explain stability.

But I don't necessarily want to cause Navvie any anguish... I just want
him to stop lying & making up BS to sound important... or would that
take away what little he has in life?

DSK