Okay, so, I found something

yeah, so, uh, for those with an interest in military technology or naval warfare, this will require a second glance. But the Swedish wording of this is "PROPOSAL FOR AIR CRAFT CARRIER CRUISER WITH 6 210MM GUNS"

So, uh, this seems to have been the pet project of one Harry Åbom who drafted this sketch in 1946 and it is not mentioned anywhere else in the Swedish navy command correspondence, except for this sketch in the war archives - seemingly it was a proposal that just never went anywhere because there was no benefit for the Swedish navy when it never went too far away from air field coverage, and if they ever wanted any carriers they could just buy them as surplus from the US or Great Britain.

Below I will present the translation (and added info for context)... and oh boy, strap yourselves in.

Guns 6: - 210 mm gun 3 barrel turret 8: - 120mm - - 2 barrel turret 30: 40mm - - two and one barrel tripod/gun pod Hull armour Above water belt: 70 and 70 mm (rear 40mm) Torpedo belt: 80 mm Flight deck and other hangar: 25mm Hangar deck: 25mm Torpedo deck: 75mm Sides and ends: 50mm PROPOSAL FOR AIR CRAFT CARRIER CRUISER With 6 210mm guns Keel length: 160m Keel width: 22m Underwater compartment: 6.1m Displacement: 12,000 tons Displacement standard: 11,500 tons Speed with 40,000 horsepower: 26 knots Air craft: 16.

I am not a big fan of the fact the walls are so thin at places I can hear one of my neighbors booting up his computer.

Not sure if I ever shared this, but I remember a few months ago a bud was texting me over FB and he was asking for my phone number so he could call me when he needed to pick me up later that day, and I wrote my phone number over FB chat in two posts, split in half. And he insisted I type it in one go. I said nah, not interested in putting that out on Facebook. So he called me and nearly chews me out for being difficult, and I just explained I do do not give out that kind of information on any social media platform in any capacity, because I don't want any BS scam calls from dataminers.

He said he had worked with IT for years and never heard about it, and I was paranoid (maybe even insinuated I was stupid).

And I just cannot shake the feeling he just got mad he had to memorize 10 numbers split between 2 messages.

This is a long video, but it does not take too long to show it does a fantastic debunking and critical analysis of the sort of hackney horse-puck peddling of psuedo-history that Graham Hancock is pitting out into the public consciousness.

His ideas are not only wrong, but he is manipulative to a dirty and disgraceful degree - and we should all benefit from being able to recognize the tricks he pulls before our eyes.

I will cease, and not have a rant. I will just show my deep appreciation of this channel for bringing this up, as many have done the last few weeks especially.