Can you substantiate beyond any shadow of doubt that the Waratah turned back and was on fire.? There is no evidence to support your theory, either at the court of inquiry or in any erroneous newspaperreports of which there were many regarding the Waratah. It would appear that most of your writings on the subject are a deliberate fabrications by you, can you prove otherwise.?Signed a fed up and pissed off ship enthusiast.
No, there are no substantiations for any of the theories. Don't let my opinion upset you so much.
Mr. van rensburg. On the 1st July, anonymous asked you to substantiate your theories on the s.s. Waratah. In reply you stated that there was no substantiation of the theories put forward, then went on to say "don't let my opinions upset you so much." Well Mr. van rensburg, as a student of maritime history I have to ask "Why bother to publish your opinions when you state that they cannot be substantiated." Do you not agree that your information is in fact misleading to myself and many of my like minded students who are endeavouring to obtain the best examination marks possible in this historical subject?
Dear Anonymous. Substantiation = finding the wreck of the Waratah. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence to support the Harlow account. I 'bother' because I believe the Harlow account to be true. The information is not misleading as it is based on a plethora of published reports and being a student interested in 'the best examination marks possible', don't you think that you should be able to read posts; quoted reports and come to your own conclusions? I thought that was what being a student was all about...
Mr. van rensburg. Reference to your post dated 2 July and in answer to my post = it is true that I have read and studied many quoted reports and have come to my own conclusions thus my comments were made to ensure that other students are aware that your reports, based on newspapers of the day (and written by journalists) are to be questioned. Clearly you are not an expert on maritime history and any post you have or may make is not to be taken seriously....
I have read the "war of words" in previous posts and find the words on "Waratah explained" to be both comprehensive and well researched. In a post dated 13 October 2015 headed "The Harlow evidence debunked Why?" to be an example of proper research based on experience by the author of this post. The Harlow evidence that Mr. van rensburg has posted and seems to trust was also dismissed by the Commissioner of the Board of Trade at the subsequent inquiry.
Stanley Robinson's level of knowledge on the Waratah and maritime expertise is superb. But his 'Harlow evidence debunked' reflects the status quo which has been eloquently reproduced in many publications. I have pursued the Harlow account because it is multi-layered and despite controversial aspects, holds a number of highly specific references. As time went by Captain Bruce became more adamant that he had witnessed the last moments of the Waratah. His coordinates were never dragged, as he suggested should be done, and the Inquiry, in many respects, was a whitewash. My intention is not to reinvent the wheel but rather to question and explore the status quo. This is my opinion and right. You have every right and reason to disagree until such time as the wreck is discovered - if ever. The beauty of the Waratah mystery is that it lends itself to passionate opinion and exploration - beyond marks in an exam.
Post a Comment