Uh, not really -- at least not the first place winner -- who came to the conclusion upon reading the obvious unfine print in the BoM: “No doubt about it, there were holes in the top and the bottom." [Gee, really? The text plainly says that?]
His next assessment?: Some people suggest two holes were called for because the barges sometimes turned over. In my opinion this would have been catastrophic, especially when you consider that the barge was full of people, food, water, and animals.
OK, let me get this straight. He's just read in the BoM that holes were to placed in the top & bottom of 8 vessels. So who are the lame-brain "let's read something completely different into the text" folks? (But certainly, I could see the motivation for these lame-brainers to want to change the text...I mean, after all, what an amateur shipbuilder's dream! Build vessels with stoppable holes in the bottom!)
So, this kid doesn't seem to stop & think here. I mean, what's the only purpose a vessel could have for a hole in its bottom? Answer? The "bottom" wasn't always "bottom" -- sometimes it pitched & rolled & remained upside down underwater.
It's almost as if he didn't read Ether 2:24-25 and 6:5-7 which describes waves crashing upon the vessels; the vessels acting like a whale in the sea; mentions three times being driven to "the depths" of the sea...all of these are wave actions upon a "tight as a dish" & thereby is actually consistent then with a possible motivation for wanting a hole in the bottom. It's almost like a rolling vessel.
But, I have to give the kid credit for one thing many Lds adults have flunked on: He realized something obvious applicable to such a vessel no matter what (even tho he thought it'd only apply to a 2-hole-in-the-top vessel). And that's this observation re: "turned-over barges": ...the barges sometimes turned over. In my opinion this would have been catastrophic, especially when you consider that the barge was full of people, food, water, and animals.
Yes, sir, exactly, right! (And this was the same conclusions the author GreyFoxx posted in this thread -- see points 25-26, 29-31, and 34-37).
(Sometimes, Lds youth will back up into an obvious conclusion that's escaped so many older generation Mormons. Lds can't have it both ways: They can't on the one hand, try to make the case for a hole in the bottom of such a vessel -- and then pretend the turned "catastrophic" effects upon people, food, water & animals inside didn't play out -- if in fact, that purposeful design came about -- as Ether 2:24-25 & 6:5-7 says it did).
The hole in the bottom of the barge would have been useful (one might say essential) for the disposal of human and animal wastes.
The author of the original article insists repeatedly that the barges must have flipped, flopped, or turned upside down. But the text does not say so. Hence, 13 of the author's 40 numbered questions are based on a dubious premise.