otnmbrd wrote:
BG Careful now, For all you know, "I" could have taken those pictures.

otn


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:27:28 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Not the heavy seas debate again.

NNNNOOOOO!!!!!! :)

Later,

Tom

========================

Yeah, we all know those pictures were faked by Harry K in his bath tub
right?





Here we go again; I suppose it's better than goulds usual deceptive
spam, although it's his same old same old deceptions:-).

So forget the "scary" pics where there is no horizon because they're
classic of how the not too bright get deluded in the first place. Not
that the simpletons will understand that the boat is pitching & rolling
"into" the wave.

Concentrate on the pics where there is at least some background
seascape & remember even they are deceptive because save you have an
actual visible horizon as a reference all bets & wild club bar BS is off.

Wouldn't be a 30 ft wave in the lot of them & as anyone who has
actually been to sea knows the harder it blows after a certain point the
flatter the wind waves get, as for swell yes a large ship driven with
10s of thousands of HP can dive down & under it's huge mass plough
through a swell but so what?? unless you can see the horizon you will
have no means of knowing the size of the wave.

Even the wave rider buoys which combine a wind wave upon a swell don't
come up with school boy stories like this.

Anyway believe what you will, gee some here "believe" Krause &/or Gould:-)

Which reminds me here's your Krause lie of the day:-)

K


The Krause lie of the day???

The liar Krause works for Ullico the union Co that tries to take
money from honest hard working unionists then direct it to "union"
decided projects, so this lie is him admitting how a union organisation
was actually funding a political campaign, illegal?? you ask, yeah me
too but hey we know how much he hates Bush. Ullico has a history in this
also as you'll see in subsequent Krause lies.


I'm doing my part to ease unemployment. I'm hiring another writer
for my staff. Will be putting the ad on MONSTER.COM and in the Wash Post.

I need more staff because 2004 is a major election year and business

booked to date indicates we'll be drowning in work. We need to hire a
production coordinator, too. It has very little to do with the state
of the
economy, other than using it as reason to defeat Republicrap candidates.


Is this just another Krause lie??? well probably like all the
others:-) but imagine if it's actually true???? Knowing that he has no
"business" of his own just as he has no boat of his own, but he works
for Ullico which is supposed to be a not for profit looking out for
genuine unionists?????



We have first-class benefits, including a top-of-the-line health
insurance plan, a non-contributory defined-benefit pension plan, a 401k,
and a life insurance policy equal to annual salary. We contribute a
share of profits to the 401k on behalf of the employee. Our employees
pay $4.50 for generic prescriptions and $8.00 for non-generics, but
that's going up next year to $10 and $15. New employees get two weeks
vacation the first year, and that goes to three weeks the third year. In
addition, we have 12 paid holidays and we shut down from noon on
Christmas eve to the day after New Year's Day. We also provide 20 days
of paid sick leave a year. And we have an outside company administering
pre-tax flexible bennies for our employees.
Our fringe benefit package follows the trade union model, except, of
course, for the profit contributions to 401k's. Trade unions are
not-for-profit enterprises.
How do these compare to the bennies at your shop?


Clearly if there is any truth to this then it's the pay & conditions
Krause gets from his employer Ullico & probably socialists being
socialists they pay all the employees the same!!! So here we have hard
working unionists being levied by their unions, who give the money to
the likes of Ullico who then pay their uneducated lying staff such as
Krause as per his own claims in his own words above, this is sad in the
extreme.

If you are in a union better start asking questions big time it's
your retirement they're ****ing against the wall, by paying themselves;

Even some in the NG found this lie over the top & said so;


Paid? Every year? I call "bull****". With 3 weeks vacation, 12 paid
holidays, and 20 paid sick days that's 47 *paid* days off every
year. Are they hourly employees? For a "small business", that's the road to
bankruptcy.



Boy...and you had me going there for a minute.


Even after that!!! not our lying Krause he just continues with the
previous line that his employer is putting big bucks into a political
campaign, how so??? they're a not for profit with tax concessions to
boot!!! it's illegal!!! send in the Feds!!! simple as that & remember
all you unionists it's "your" money they're
spending without your knowledge much less permission on "their"
political campaign!!!

So lying Krause continues & adds even more insight into what
happens to "your" money when it goes to the unions:-);

Not quite so simple, though you are trying hard to make it so. Our
business is up because we're on the cusp of an election year. Our
business always goes up in a major election year.
You could say we're going to be doing very well in 2004 because Bush is
such a total failure.
The 20 paid sick days aren't part of the "paid" days off unless those
days are used. None of our people abuses sick leave. In fact, no one as
yet has even come close to using 20 sick days in one year. They're there
in case they're needed.
Oh, I forgot. We also provide everyone with LTD.
The company provides an insurance plan that pays 50% of an employe's
salary for Long Term Disability. Employes have the option of purchasing
an additional 16.66%, bringing their total to 66.66%. The basic benefit
maximum is $4,000 per month. With the buy up, the limit is increased to
$10,000 per month.



In this case I suggest Krause just admits it's another of his lies
before any of his little socialist mates get nailed????

K. Smith wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:
BG Careful now, For all you know, "I" could have taken those
pictures.

I see that YOU haven't gotten on board with JimH's pitch for a more
civil, no name-calling, no lying about others rec.boats.

Haven't made too many trips on that ship's normal route, I'd guess (North
Pacific)?
Couple of things to help you judge the wave heights .... The ship is 201m
LOA with a height of eye for the bridge of @ 24m.
Having a horizon can be a great help, but so can, using the ship's
dimensions.

otn

BTW, that's a 50,000 ton tanker with only 11,500 SHP

"K. Smith" wrote in message
...
otnmbrd wrote:
BG Careful now, For all you know, "I" could have taken those pictures.

otn


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:27:28 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Not the heavy seas debate again.

NNNNOOOOO!!!!!! :)

Later,

Tom

========================

Yeah, we all know those pictures were faked by Harry K in his bath tub
right?





Here we go again; I suppose it's better than goulds usual deceptive spam,
although it's his same old same old deceptions:-).

So forget the "scary" pics where there is no horizon because they're
classic of how the not too bright get deluded in the first place. Not that
the simpletons will understand that the boat is pitching & rolling "into"
the wave.

Concentrate on the pics where there is at least some background seascape &
remember even they are deceptive because save you have an actual visible
horizon as a reference all bets & wild club bar BS is off.

Wouldn't be a 30 ft wave in the lot of them & as anyone who has actually
been to sea knows the harder it blows after a certain point the flatter
the wind waves get, as for swell yes a large ship driven with 10s of
thousands of HP can dive down & under it's huge mass plough through a
swell but so what?? unless you can see the horizon you will have no means
of knowing the size of the wave.

Even the wave rider buoys which combine a wind wave upon a swell don't
come up with school boy stories like this.

Anyway believe what you will, gee some here "believe" Krause &/or Gould:-)

Which reminds me here's your Krause lie of the day:-)

K


The Krause lie of the day???

The liar Krause works for Ullico the union Co that tries to take money
from honest hard working unionists then direct it to "union" decided
projects, so this lie is him admitting how a union organisation was
actually funding a political campaign, illegal?? you ask, yeah me too but
hey we know how much he hates Bush. Ullico has a history in this
also as you'll see in subsequent Krause lies.


I'm doing my part to ease unemployment. I'm hiring another writer
for my staff. Will be putting the ad on MONSTER.COM and in the Wash Post.

I need more staff because 2004 is a major election year and business

booked to date indicates we'll be drowning in work. We need to hire a
production coordinator, too. It has very little to do with the state of
the
economy, other than using it as reason to defeat Republicrap candidates.


Is this just another Krause lie??? well probably like all the
others:-) but imagine if it's actually true???? Knowing that he has no
"business" of his own just as he has no boat of his own, but he works for
Ullico which is supposed to be a not for profit looking out for genuine
unionists?????



We have first-class benefits, including a top-of-the-line health
insurance plan, a non-contributory defined-benefit pension plan, a 401k,
and a life insurance policy equal to annual salary. We contribute a
share of profits to the 401k on behalf of the employee. Our employees
pay $4.50 for generic prescriptions and $8.00 for non-generics, but
that's going up next year to $10 and $15. New employees get two weeks
vacation the first year, and that goes to three weeks the third year. In
addition, we have 12 paid holidays and we shut down from noon on
Christmas eve to the day after New Year's Day. We also provide 20 days
of paid sick leave a year. And we have an outside company administering
pre-tax flexible bennies for our employees.
Our fringe benefit package follows the trade union model, except, of
course, for the profit contributions to 401k's. Trade unions are
not-for-profit enterprises.
How do these compare to the bennies at your shop?


Clearly if there is any truth to this then it's the pay & conditions
Krause gets from his employer Ullico & probably socialists being
socialists they pay all the employees the same!!! So here we have hard
working unionists being levied by their unions, who give the money to the
likes of Ullico who then pay their uneducated lying staff such as
Krause as per his own claims in his own words above, this is sad in the
extreme.

If you are in a union better start asking questions big time it's your
retirement they're ****ing against the wall, by paying themselves;

Even some in the NG found this lie over the top & said so;


Paid? Every year? I call "bull****". With 3 weeks vacation, 12 paid
holidays, and 20 paid sick days that's 47 *paid* days off every
year. Are they hourly employees? For a "small business", that's the road
to
bankruptcy.



Boy...and you had me going there for a minute.


Even after that!!! not our lying Krause he just continues with the
previous line that his employer is putting big bucks into a political
campaign, how so??? they're a not for profit with tax concessions to
boot!!! it's illegal!!! send in the Feds!!! simple as that & remember all
you unionists it's "your" money they're
spending without your knowledge much less permission on "their" political
campaign!!!

So lying Krause continues & adds even more insight into what happens
to "your" money when it goes to the unions:-);

Not quite so simple, though you are trying hard to make it so. Our
business is up because we're on the cusp of an election year. Our
business always goes up in a major election year.
You could say we're going to be doing very well in 2004 because Bush is
such a total failure.
The 20 paid sick days aren't part of the "paid" days off unless those
days are used. None of our people abuses sick leave. In fact, no one as
yet has even come close to using 20 sick days in one year. They're there
in case they're needed.
Oh, I forgot. We also provide everyone with LTD.
The company provides an insurance plan that pays 50% of an employe's
salary for Long Term Disability. Employes have the option of purchasing
an additional 16.66%, bringing their total to 66.66%. The basic benefit
maximum is $4,000 per month. With the buy up, the limit is increased to
$10,000 per month.



In this case I suggest Krause just admits it's another of his lies
before any of his little socialist mates get nailed????

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:04:27 GMT, "otnmbrd"
wrote:

Couple of things to help you judge the wave heights .... The ship is 201m
LOA with a height of eye for the bridge of @ 24m.
Having a horizon can be a great help, but so can, using the ship's
dimensions.

================

So assuming the pictures have not been doctored, how high would you
estimate the waves?

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:04:27 GMT, "otnmbrd"
wrote:


Couple of things to help you judge the wave heights .... The ship is 201m
LOA with a height of eye for the bridge of @ 24m.
Having a horizon can be a great help, but so can, using the ship's
dimensions.


================

So assuming the pictures have not been doctored, how high would you
estimate the waves?


I have no doubt that those first three pictures have not been doctored.
My guess from what I see would be 60'+/- .... I think the 100' is high
since I think the ship has just finished a large roll to port at the
time of the picture.

otn

otnmbrd wrote:
Haven't made too many trips on that ship's normal route, I'd guess (North
Pacific)?
Couple of things to help you judge the wave heights .... The ship is 201m
LOA with a height of eye for the bridge of @ 24m.
Having a horizon can be a great help, but so can, using the ship's
dimensions.

otn

BTW, that's a 50,000 ton tanker with only 11,500 SHP

Ok firstly I'm not suggesting the pics are "doctored" nor that you or
other observers are liars like Krause; so I'll try once more as I have
many times over the years.

(i) Once you are on a boat or a plane you have no real idea where
vertical or horizontal are anymore, this is because you are so used to &
designed to sense these things from a solid base line.

(ii) This is not an illusion it's a real thing because your sense of
what's up down or across is from your ear & your ear is a simple fluid
bubble level.

(iii) Next time you are flying or on your boat big or small, take the
time to set say a half full bottle of coke on the dash or deck & watch
how much the fluid level seems to move relative to your perceived motion
of the boat i.e. it will seem to you that the boat's motion should be
sloshing the fluid level everywhere but you'll see it's very very
restrained, so much so that you'll think coke (or water or tea) is as
thick as heavy oil. Another good example are those little heeling
indicators on yachts, they always seem very docile at sea but they're
not when you play with them tied in the marina.

(iv) Similarly but the other way round, next time you're on a plane
making it's turn on final & it's banked well over, take a look at your
test bottle & you'll see the fluid level is "exactly" level (assuming
your pilot is mixing the ailerons with the rudder properly)
The explanation is simple in that the boat or the plane are not just
accelerating in one direction & as Albert said gravity is just
acceleration. It's not an optical illusion or anything like that, it's
just a fact of life that once you're on something that can accelerate in
at least 2 directions at once you'll totally loose the ability to know
what's vertical & what's horizontal.

(v) As big as some ships are they still roll around & pitch around lots
& yes like all boats they do both at the same time.

(vi) Once you are on the boat, even when you have an horizon to see
it's almost impossible to accurately estimate the height of waves.
Because as the boat say rolls towards a swell you as an observer don't
know this indeed you don't even know you're not look horizontally out at
the wave but you are in fact looking down into the water & "seeing" it
all as up a wall of water.

(v) That's why I suggested you look for the pics with some seascape &
any of those give a more realistic "picture" however again you will have
no idea if the camera is pointing up down sideways or other & a spirit
level on it wouldn't help at all. A seriously technical gyro might but
that doesn't apply here.

(vi) To those that have actually been to sea in small boats I can best
describe this as the what happens when you're busy below, usually in the
galley:-) & the boat is tramping along in a brisk following sea. The
person in the galley busy looking at what they're doing has no real
impression it's particularly rough nor that the boat's motion is any
more than usual in open water, the crew up on deck, with a reasonable
view of the seascape & the horizon can see that's it's a bit bumpy but
nothing more than is expected for the breeze (remember from a small boat
your horizon is rarely much more than 3-4 miles away, so the boat's
motion readily translates optically into lots of movement)
Ok so now their lunch & drinky poos are ready & as the galley slave
comes up the companionway, hooly dooly there's this absolutely huge wave
gathering up behind the boat & it's looks truly huge, so steep it seems
to be defying gravity & is surely about to poop us!!! Hang on campers
!!!, but then it just seems to muffle away & go under the boat, with not
much more than a slap on the transom.
The reason is that after being without a real visual reference of
movement for a while (the horizon) if you come up the companionway at
the wrong time, when the boat has just had a crest go under it , the
boat is stern down on the back of the passing wave & along way ahead of
the next advancing wave, however having no reference for where up or
down is the galley slave "sees" out the stern down into the trough &
then up to the next crest as all being up. So the wave looks enormous &
exceedingly steep.

(vii) Big ships the effect is even more marked because they are huge
you get used to not having an external reference in any weather, the
horizon is a long ways off depending on your height above the water &
the boats motion is very slow compared to a small craft.

So assuming you took the time to read this now go back & look at the
pics, notice that all the really big waves have no reference other than
the wave & deck??? it's just how it looks, note how any of the pics with
some seascape in them give a more realistic effect as to the wave
heights, & even then sometime people have pics of small boats in not
even mild conditions but the illusion is that the waves are huge.

I's also point out that even on a seemingly dead flat day most big
ships being driven at speed into even a slight swell will develop a slow
pitching motion that ever once & a while will be in sync with the swell
timing so the boat will be coming down as the swell goes up & the wave
breaks over the bow. This doesn't mean in any manner that the wave was a
high as the bow when the boat is tied to the wharf.

So that's the story & I guess I've earnt my Krause lie of the day:-)

K


So just getting back to the Hatt 43 lie:-) What happened was at
least 2 of the NG people lived near where he "claimed" he did & said
they'd settle if he owned a Hatt 43 or not by simply calling around &
taking a look:-) After all his usual abuse & fained "privacy" concerns
it was starting to look like his lying hide was about to be hung out to
dry:-)

This would be more than his ego could even contemplate, so in his
desperation not to be caught red handed (again:-)) he then lied again;
which despite it being totally unbelievable it allowed his damaged mind
to think he was still the big man his lies had created:-)

Doubt save to organise employment wrecking union strokes he's never
even been to Florida but he desperately needed to get away from the lie
mansion & the lie Hatt 43:-)





We had the Hatteras for two years. Last year, out of the cold clear,
a broker approached me with an offer to buy. Our continued Florida
lifestyle was somewhat up in the air, because the two breadwinners
hereabouts were about to be offered long-term but temporary assignments
they could not refuse in the Washington, D.C., area. So, after being
romanced a little, we sold the Hatt for almost precisely what we paid
for it. Not bad, after two full years of use. And I mean full years. So,
we didn't "make" any money off the Hatt, but we didn't lose any, either.
The proceeds were prudently invested.








"K. Smith" wrote in message
...

otnmbrd wrote:

BG Careful now, For all you know, "I" could have taken those pictures.

otn


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:27:28 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:


Not the heavy seas debate again.

NNNNOOOOO!!!!!! :)

Later,

Tom

========================

Yeah, we all know those pictures were faked by Harry K in his bath tub
right?




Here we go again; I suppose it's better than goulds usual deceptive spam,
although it's his same old same old deceptions:-).

So forget the "scary" pics where there is no horizon because they're
classic of how the not too bright get deluded in the first place. Not that
the simpletons will understand that the boat is pitching & rolling "into"
the wave.

Concentrate on the pics where there is at least some background seascape &
remember even they are deceptive because save you have an actual visible
horizon as a reference all bets & wild club bar BS is off.

Wouldn't be a 30 ft wave in the lot of them & as anyone who has actually
been to sea knows the harder it blows after a certain point the flatter
the wind waves get, as for swell yes a large ship driven with 10s of
thousands of HP can dive down & under it's huge mass plough through a
swell but so what?? unless you can see the horizon you will have no means
of knowing the size of the wave.

Even the wave rider buoys which combine a wind wave upon a swell don't
come up with school boy stories like this.

Anyway believe what you will, gee some here "believe" Krause &/or Gould:-)

Which reminds me here's your Krause lie of the day:-)

K


The Krause lie of the day???

The liar Krause works for Ullico the union Co that tries to take money
from honest hard working unionists then direct it to "union" decided
projects, so this lie is him admitting how a union organisation was
actually funding a political campaign, illegal?? you ask, yeah me too but
hey we know how much he hates Bush. Ullico has a history in this
also as you'll see in subsequent Krause lies.


I'm doing my part to ease unemployment. I'm hiring another writer

for my staff. Will be putting the ad on MONSTER.COM and in the Wash Post.

I need more staff because 2004 is a major election year and business

booked to date indicates we'll be drowning in work. We need to hire a
production coordinator, too. It has very little to do with the state of
the
economy, other than using it as reason to defeat Republicrap candidates.


Is this just another Krause lie??? well probably like all the
others:-) but imagine if it's actually true???? Knowing that he has no
"business" of his own just as he has no boat of his own, but he works for
Ullico which is supposed to be a not for profit looking out for genuine
unionists?????




We have first-class benefits, including a top-of-the-line health
insurance plan, a non-contributory defined-benefit pension plan, a 401k,
and a life insurance policy equal to annual salary. We contribute a
share of profits to the 401k on behalf of the employee. Our employees
pay $4.50 for generic prescriptions and $8.00 for non-generics, but
that's going up next year to $10 and $15. New employees get two weeks
vacation the first year, and that goes to three weeks the third year. In
addition, we have 12 paid holidays and we shut down from noon on
Christmas eve to the day after New Year's Day. We also provide 20 days
of paid sick leave a year. And we have an outside company administering
pre-tax flexible bennies for our employees.
Our fringe benefit package follows the trade union model, except, of
course, for the profit contributions to 401k's. Trade unions are
not-for-profit enterprises.
How do these compare to the bennies at your shop?


Clearly if there is any truth to this then it's the pay & conditions
Krause gets from his employer Ullico & probably socialists being
socialists they pay all the employees the same!!! So here we have hard
working unionists being levied by their unions, who give the money to the
likes of Ullico who then pay their uneducated lying staff such as
Krause as per his own claims in his own words above, this is sad in the
extreme.

If you are in a union better start asking questions big time it's your
retirement they're ****ing against the wall, by paying themselves;

Even some in the NG found this lie over the top & said so;


Paid? Every year? I call "bull****". With 3 weeks vacation, 12 paid
holidays, and 20 paid sick days that's 47 *paid* days off every
year. Are they hourly employees? For a "small business", that's the road
to
bankruptcy.




Boy...and you had me going there for a minute.


Even after that!!! not our lying Krause he just continues with the
previous line that his employer is putting big bucks into a political
campaign, how so??? they're a not for profit with tax concessions to
boot!!! it's illegal!!! send in the Feds!!! simple as that & remember all
you unionists it's "your" money they're
spending without your knowledge much less permission on "their" political
campaign!!!

So lying Krause continues & adds even more insight into what happens
to "your" money when it goes to the unions:-);


Not quite so simple, though you are trying hard to make it so. Our
business is up because we're on the cusp of an election year. Our
business always goes up in a major election year.
You could say we're going to be doing very well in 2004 because Bush is
such a total failure.
The 20 paid sick days aren't part of the "paid" days off unless those
days are used. None of our people abuses sick leave. In fact, no one as
yet has even come close to using 20 sick days in one year. They're there
in case they're needed.
Oh, I forgot. We also provide everyone with LTD.
The company provides an insurance plan that pays 50% of an employe's
salary for Long Term Disability. Employes have the option of purchasing
an additional 16.66%, bringing their total to 66.66%. The basic benefit
maximum is $4,000 per month. With the buy up, the limit is increased to
$10,000 per month.



In this case I suggest Krause just admits it's another of his lies
before any of his little socialist mates get nailed????

K. Smith wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:

Sheesh, took me 5 minutes to delete the "Krause Diatribe".

snipped a whole bunch more

So assuming you took the time to read this now go back & look at the
pics, notice that all the really big waves have no reference other than
the wave & deck??? it's just how it looks, note how any of the pics with
some seascape in them give a more realistic effect as to the wave
heights, & even then sometime people have pics of small boats in not
even mild conditions but the illusion is that the waves are huge.

1. Normally a glass of "Coke" or clinometer will move to a greater
degree than the ship/boat. In the case of a clinometer, if you read a 40
deg roll, at sea, divide that in half to get a closer actual roll angle.

2. On a ship, especially one with the HE of this one, in daylight
conditions, as used in those shots, you generally will always have a
good reference to horizontal by the ability of seeing the horizon .....
it's what helps a person's inner ear to keep them standing vertical when
the ship is rolling beneath them ..... take away that visual ability,
and they will bounce off bulkheads.

3. Take a look at the first picture. The foc'sle, at rest, in a loaded
condition, sits @25' above the water. The foremast is @30' tall. The
ship is starting back from a heavy port roll and beginning to recover
from a downward pitch.
For these reasons, the implication that this wave is 100' high, to me,
is incorrect. By rolling the ship (mentally) back about 20 deg and
following the line of the swell ahead, you can get a better idea of it's
height..... again, I'd say @60 +/-.
It's interesting to note that there is no water on deck. This, coupled
with the fact that this wave blew out a porthole which is about 20+ feet
above the main deck, and the engine was only running at full ahead
maneuvering, leads me to think that they had been running fairly BG
comfortably and this was a "freak wave".

4. Second picture .... seas, 30'-40' range.

otn

otnmbrd wrote:
K. Smith wrote:

otnmbrd wrote:


Sheesh, took me 5 minutes to delete the "Krause Diatribe"

Yep I know exactly what you mean, the socialist union grub can lie &
lie & lie, what's really amazing is that some a stupid enough to believe
him!!!!:-)

..

snipped a whole bunch more

That's Ok with me.


So assuming you took the time to read this now go back & look at
the pics, notice that all the really big waves have no reference other
than the wave & deck??? it's just how it looks, note how any of the
pics with some seascape in them give a more realistic effect as to the
wave heights, & even then sometime people have pics of small boats in
not even mild conditions but the illusion is that the waves are huge.


1. Normally a glass of "Coke" or clinometer will move to a greater
degree than the ship/boat. In the case of a clinometer, if you read a 40
deg roll, at sea, divide that in half to get a closer actual roll angle.

You've missed the point completely, lets try again??? You do understand
that gravity that your ear senses, is just acceleration??? So when a
boat pitches bow down, the deck relative to the horizon is is now
inclined down at the bow & up at the stern. If you were standing on the
deck with your eyes closed all you'd feel was the slight drop in gravity
at the bow (accelerating away from your feet) & the slight increase at
the stern (accelerating towards your feet) You would have no clue as to
what angle the deck was at, save you open your eyes & can see a clear
horizon.


2. On a ship, especially one with the HE of this one, in daylight
conditions, as used in those shots, you generally will always have a
good reference to horizontal by the ability of seeing the horizon .....
it's what helps a person's inner ear to keep them standing vertical when
the ship is rolling beneath them ..... take away that visual ability,
and they will bounce off bulkheads.

Again when the boat "rolls" it is actually accelerating up down etc as
the wave effects it with no external reference of what is true
horizontal you'll never know, an inclinometer won't help because it
reacts to the various acceleration just the same as your ear does.


3. Take a look at the first picture. The foc'sle, at rest, in a loaded
condition, sits @25' above the water. The foremast is @30' tall. The
ship is starting back from a heavy port roll and beginning to recover
from a downward pitch.
For these reasons, the implication that this wave is 100' high, to me,
is incorrect. By rolling the ship (mentally) back about 20 deg and
following the line of the swell ahead, you can get a better idea of it's
height..... again, I'd say @60 +/-.

Well you can believe as you wish but where is the reference?? The fact
water is getting on deck means nothing whatsoever as to wave height,
it's just a function of the boats motion in a fluid. Note in pic one
it's taken to confirm a belief, but not seascape even so it means nothing.

It's interesting to note that there is no water on deck. This, coupled
with the fact that this wave blew out a porthole which is about 20+ feet
above the main deck, and the engine was only running at full ahead
maneuvering, leads me to think that they had been running fairly BG
comfortably and this was a "freak wave".

The old blown porthole story so what???

4. Second picture .... seas, 30'-40' range.

Same boat in the same sea state but you've dropped the waves by half,
just a bit of seascape crept into the pic, if you saw a wide angle with
lots of seascape you'd get closer to the reality a steady say 20 with
the occasion wave atop a swell giving you the 30.

It seems even you accept this is nothing more than a very bumpy day &
most of the action is being caused by the boat itself rolling pitching &
ploughing along.



otn


K

he's your diatribe Krause lie of the day:-)


Of course the big question with Krause's lies is just how does he
come up with these absurd BS stories?? After all it's clear he has no
education nor even basic intelligence, well here's an example;


Here's a funny. My bride had to fly out to San Diego Wednesday and
hitched a ride on her company's corporate jet. They landed in Salina,
Kansas, which is due north of Wichita and Skippy's suburb of Derby.



Notwithstanding it's just more of his racist based abuse of others
he sees as lesser people because of their address, the interesting part
is the endless lies he throws in about the non existent "young bride" lie.

Well look where he got the idea of the "corporate jet" lie; guess
what??? Good ol' Ullico spends genuine unionists money on a corporate
jet!!! & as with all their type they squabble over who gets the most of
other peoples' money!!!


ULLICO
Union Pension-Owned Company Set to Lose $20-$30 Million
Its stock windfall from the bankrupt Global Crossing now gone,
Georgine, former head of the AFL-CIO's Bldg. & Construction Trades
Dept., blamed chief financial officer John Grelle for the losses.
Days later, Grelle resigned in protest, blasting Georgine for not
selling the company jet, which costs $3 million a year.



Remember this is hard working in the main, ordinary honest
unionists' money they're ****ing away then fighting over the leftovers???

K. Smith wrote:

You've missed the point completely, lets try again???

A. No, I didn't.
B. I disagree
C. Not worth a long-winded argument .... especially if I have to waste
time downloading your "Krause Diatribes".


Again when the boat "rolls" it is actually accelerating up down etc
as the wave effects it with no external reference of what is true
horizontal you'll never know, an inclinometer won't help because it
reacts to the various acceleration just the same as your ear does.

Again, I disagree.

Well you can believe as you wish but where is the reference?? The
fact water is getting on deck means nothing whatsoever as to wave
height, it's just a function of the boats motion in a fluid. Note in pic
one it's taken to confirm a belief, but not seascape even so it means
nothing.

Disagree ...

The old blown porthole story so what???

If you knew the ship and this particular porthole (one of two in that
lounge), you'd understand.



4. Second picture .... seas, 30'-40' range.


Same boat in the same sea state but you've dropped the waves by
half, just a bit of seascape crept into the pic, if you saw a wide angle
with lots of seascape you'd get closer to the reality a steady say 20
with the occasion wave atop a swell giving you the 30.

Same ship, different day, different set of conditions.
Have you considered that your powers of observation may not be all that
good?

It seems even you accept this is nothing more than a very bumpy day
& most of the action is being caused by the boat itself rolling pitching
& ploughing along.

LOL I consider these pictures to show a frequent set of conditions on
the "TAPS" trade route, where all of the action is caused by the ship's
normal motion.

otn ..... deleted the crap which came after this, without reading.
Thanks for wasting my time.

Smith wrote:


Here we go again; I suppose it's better than goulds usual deceptive
spam, although it's his same old same old deceptions:-).

*******************

You would apologize for that remark if you had any class. I posted a
link to some interesting photos, making no representation of any kind
except that the photos were where I said they would be. How the hell is
that a "deception"? From any perspective?