Hawkes and his business partner, marine biologist Sylvia Earle, want to return to the deepest place known on Earth--Challenger Deep. This spot lies nearly 11 kilometers below the surface of the Pacific Ocean in the Mariana Trench, located 320 km southeast of the island of Guam.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...146/ai_15781726

Is that specific enough for you??

There's a fundamental flaw in your logic.

Firstly, you're saying that the because no-one CAN repeat the feat, it must have been faked. Then you provide a link that shows other people ARE attempting to repeat the feat! Well, which it is, because those two statements seem mutually excusive to me.

Further to that, here's a quote from the link you supplied (my bolding):-

No one doubts that the return trip will be exciting, but critics question its scientific exigence. Marine geologist Robert Ballard, Woods Hole's noted deepwater explorer, is often quoted as calling the venture "a stunt" and "trivial."

Marine biologist Art Yayanos, also of Scripps, says: "I have a gut feeling that says man's presence leads to discoveries that are difficult to make without man's presence.... But the cost is quite substantial, and if a fraction of that cost were put into an unmanned exploration, maybe we'd learn 99 percent of what we'd learn otherwise."

So there you have it. The reason it hasn't been attempted is because manned exloration at that depth is far more expensive, and doesn't add genuine scientific value. Some people see it as a "stunt", which to a certain extent it is. I hope they go ahead it with for at least 2 reasons. Firstly, I love the spirit of adventure and esprit de couer such ventures stir up. Secondly, we can finally put this thread to sleep!

Totally agree!!
The fool that started this thread has supplied no evidence for his stupid claims, no reason to belive his claims, and totally ignored the facts!!!
Stupidity knows no bounds, and you Turbonoium are that fool.

Wrong. There are people trying to duplicate the feat, but as of today, we (and they) CANNOT duplicate the feat.

Which means it was never done in the first place!



All you've done is find some people who disagree with the value of manned exploration, and say it's very expensive to boot.

Which means squat, since other people DO see value in it, and ARE spending big bucks on it.

That those who are trying cannot do it today is not proof that it was never done. It is only your supposition and it is not borne out by any fact or evidence.

Again, use the Concorde as a counter-point.

I would LOVE to buy a ticket for a super-sonic transatlantic flight (assuming of course I could afford one), but try as I might, I cannot because the vehicle is not in service and there is no other passenger plane in existence or in service that is able to do what the Concorde did.

Based on that it is fair (and correct) to say that it is currently impossible for me to take a supersonic transatlantic flight.

Now, if we were to go to the hypothetical extreme of destroying all blueprints and all remaining Concordes, effectively removing them and all evidence of them from present existence, does that mean that the plane never existed and that all the passengers it carried were "tricked" into believing they had flown at Mach 2, or that there is some sort of conspiracy to make people believe that it was once possible even though it clearly is not possible today?



Cz

Turbs

I fail to see how you can keep on using this logic. The reason they cannot repeat the feat is that they haven't as yet raised the ncessary funding to develop and build their proposed submersible. It's nothing to do with it being impossible from a technical/technological point of view. Which is exactly why Concorde is a very good comparison.

Furthermore, you say that because the feat hasn't yet been repeated, it was never done in the first place. So what happens if and when they do repeat the feat? Does the space-time continuum curl back on itself and somehow contrive to pull Trieste down that last 10,000 feet that it couldn't quite make in 1960? Do we all disappear through a back hole and emerge in a reality where Trieste did descend Challenger Deep? Or does Trieste still remain a hoax? If so, why, because you won't be able to use the fatally flawed logic you're using here. Again, it comes down to evidence for your theory, rather than speculation.

And what happens if noone repeats the feat of the new submersible (let's call it Deep Flight II)? How long do we wait before we get to claim that Deep Flight II must also have been a hoax, because noone can duplicate their feat?

I mean, it's not as if we don't have the tech, or that the task is/was impossible.

Nice Bill Hill....I often despair of the lack of science from some people, but you have hit the nail-on-the-head. It is so easy to replicate, just expensive, and no reason to do it.

Well there you go, the blue-prints still exist. Looks feasible to my untrained eye.

Another defective analogy.

There has not been any attempt to build a newer, better 'Concorde' - until recently..

Flying at more than twice the speed of Concorde and five times the speed of sound, this hypersonic airliner is set to be the future of modern air travel...Billed as the "Son of Concorde", the commercial plane is designed to carry 300 passengers and will reach speeds of Mach 5 – five times the speed of sound.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...d=1770&ct=5

Concorde flew at Mach 2, and carried 100 passengers, on average. So the "Son" will fly 2 1/2 times faster, and carry triple the number of passengers. That's a tremendous leap forward from the Concorde.

So, how does this compare to the "Son of Trieste"?

There are two groups who have spent years trying to develop and build the 'ultimate' manned submersible. To date, the best they've been able to come up with is the Shinkai 6500, which doesn't even come close to the depths supposedly reached by the Trieste in 1960.

Are you starting to see how ridiculous the Trieste claim is, when it's compared to every other technology-based field?

Personally, I don't really care whether the Trieste went to Challenger Deep or not. However, watching you try to spin nothing but opinion, personal bias, supposition and a complete lack of supporting evidence (that the Trieste dive didn't happen, which was the original point of this thread) into some warped version of the truth is proving mighty amusing...




Cz

Turbs

The Concorde analogy isn't defective, since "Son of Concorde" won't fly for at least 15 years, if the funding and political will can be found.

I'll repeat the question others have asked before. Do you have any evidence to support your argument other than, "We don't have a craft capable of doing this now, therefore it can't have been done then." What is it about the design of Trieste that made a dive to 36,000 feet impossible?

Wrong. It has everything to do with the lack of technology.

The Deep Flight project began in 1988, with one ultimate goal in mind - building a manned submersible capable of reaching the bottom of Challenger Deep. But only now, some 18 years later, has it progressed to the point where they are able to design a manned submersible capable of such depths as the Trieste claims to have achieved in 1960.

Deep Flight I was built over 10 years ago, and can only reach depths of 3300 feet. They were not able to design and build a craft like 'Deep Flight II' at that time. It wasn't a lack of money, it was a lack of know-how. Now, it only lacks the money, because they finally do have (or at least believe they have) the know-how. But again, they did NOT have the know-how 18 years ago!!

Furthermore, the Japanese project makes the lack-of-funding argument irrelevant. They have a massive budget, in the $100's of millions. And yet, they've only progressed from 2000 ft (in 1981) to 6500 ft. depths with their manned submersibles, over the past 27 years!!

IT ISN'T BECAUSE THEY LACK THE MONEY!



Please, I'm getting a headache from all this!

No. Once more, what I said is that because we haven't yet been CAPABLE (despite our advanced technology) of replicating the claimed feat, then we must conclude - indeed, we have no other choice but to conclude - that it could not have been done in 1960. It was impossible. Period.



Well, the way technology keeps advancing, faster by the year, I'd say they'd clue in to the Deep Flight II hoax in far less time than the 48 years it's taken (me, for one) to realize the Trieste was a hoax!

Think of it as a science experiment. In order to prove an experiment is a success, it has to be repeatable. Two guys can claim they can turn tinfoil into pure gold, but nobody's gonna believe them until the experiment is proven to be 100% replicable, and 100% verified, by outside sources.

That's exactly what we have with the Trieste claim. All possible excuses are accounted for. We want to do it. We're trying to do it. We have the money to do it (in Japan's case, at least).

And, we have far better technology to do it now, than we did back in 1960.

The only reason we COULD NOT replicate the feat is if it was never done in the first place. Which means only one thing - that it was all a lie, a con game, a hoax.

And it's probably lasted so long as a hoax because few people even know about the Trieste, much less care about it. I hadn't heard about it until you brought it up a couple months ago!!

Wrong.... It has everything to do with wanting to improve on the technology, not lack of it.



Wrong... Graham Hawkes never stated that as Deep Flight 2's ultimate goal. It IS something that he plans to do.

"




$50Million




Self-inflicted from failling to provide any evidence of a conspiracy



Back up this claim, provide evidence



Poor analogy, like your poorly supported argument. Going to Challenger Deep was in the truest sense an exploration, NOT a scientific experiment.



Once again a poorly constructed argument. NO-ONE wants to go to Challenger Deep, except in a self propelled, independently powered vessel. The next time we go to the moon it will be in craft vastly superior to the Apollo missions.... to perform real science when we arrive there. Same as with Deep Flight 2




Are you aware just how excrutiatingly boring your tedious repetition of your personal mantra is????


Your ignorance of this landmark exploration is only equalled by your ignorance surrounding the adventure, and your lack of credible, in fact, EVEN ONE piece of supporting evidence that it never happened. Seems to be a trademark of your posts!!!!

The technologies involved in Deep Flight Challenger are completely different to that used by Trieste. Trieste was negatively bouyant, and floated downwards without the need for a propulsion unit. Deep Flight Challenger is positively bouyant. It can only descend by using a propulsion unit to move it forward: the design of the fins produces a downward force. If its engines stop, it starts floating. (You can compare Trieste and Deep Flight Challenger by comparing a hot air balloon and an aeroplane.) Trieste took nearly 5 hours to descend, and 3 hours 15 minutes to acend, allowing only 20 minutes at the bottom. Deep Flight Challenger is designed to descend Challenger Deep in about 60 minutes, and will be able to ascend in less time than that. Trieste weighed 250,000 lbs and required a purpose-built support vessel, making it very expensive to operate. Deep Flight Challenger won't require a purpose built surface vessel as it only weighs 8000 lbs. Trieste had to be towed into position, whereas Deep Flight Challenger can be stowed on deck. Deep Flight Challenger is designed with a high re-usability rate, something that was difficult with Trieste for various reasons (least of which is the need for 9 tons of steel bearings required for each and every dive). Trieste had a very small viewing port, Deep Flight Challenger will have much better visibility, as well as the ability to film and retrieve samples.

It's a radically different design. If they simply wanted to do an historical re-enactment of Trieste, the ony thing stopping them would be money. What would be the point, when you could spend less money on a far better and more efficient design?



Lack of money most certainly IS part of the reason!

"But as the years passed and the nonrecreational version of Deep Flight remained on the drawing board, primarily due to lack of funding, Hawkes had a change of heart. Three years ago, the engineer and the adventurer came to an agreement: Fossett would underwrite the final stages of Challenger’s development, and in return, Hawkes would permit Fossett to go down into the trench alone."
Source

Perhaps you'd like to contact Graham Hawkes of Hawkes Ocean Technologies and tell him lack of funding is irrelevant to making his 20 year dream a reality. I'm sure he'll wonder why he bothered pushing himself to the brink of bankruptcy...

"He generated two business models from that initial test run: one for the scientific community and one for use in shallower water by wealthy aviators and underwater buffs. Hawkes decided to commercialize them both, nearly to the point of financial ruin. As successful as Deep Flight was, it was a niche product at best. He sunk his life savings — and those of his new wife, Karen Rubin, a former television broadcaster and publicity executive — whom he had married a few years before. In 1998, Hawkes started another business, having nothing to do with marine technology. He invented a weapons system — a remote-controlled gun platform — bought by the Pentagon and now being used in Iraq, and funneled the proceeds from that company into the development of his winged submersibles. In 2003, he finally created the prototype for his recreational craft."

As for why the Japanese haven't built a manned subersible capable of descending Challenger Deep yet, why not ask them directly? Here's the email address:- www-admin@jamstec.go.jp



You started it with your Alice in Wonderland logic!



Here we go again!!! The conclusion to this argument is completely and utterly illogical, as demonstrated by the Concorde analogy. Again, how do you reconcile this if and when Deep Flight Challenger does replicate the feat? If you believe they do make it, then the logic you use to say Trieste was a hoax evaporates. So what evidence are you then left with to suggest Trieste didn't make it? Where is your actual evidence that Trieste was a hoax? Anything other than "it hasn't been done since 1960 therefore it MUST be fake".

"Different"?!? Do you realize how ridiculous that excuse is?

Of course, it's a "radically different design". Much like an F-15 is a "radically different design" than a Sopwith Camel.!!

The F-15 and Deep Flight II are both much more advanced and superior designs than their predecessors. So are Deep Flight I and Shinkai 6500.

Progress does not go backwards. Technology does not regress.

Try using that excuse for any other techologically-based field....

"Sure, we could design a plane that's just as fast as the Sopwith Camel, if we used the same technology. But the F-15 is much slower than the Sopwith Camel - because it's a "radically different design"!"

I'm sure you realize how ridiculous that would sound?

It's just as ridiculous when you said it regarding the Trieste.

NO, NO, NO!!

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

It's not a fake because "it hasn't been done"...

It's because of WHY "it hasn't been done"- because WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DO IT!!


I can't spell it out for you any better than that. If you can't grasp my point by now, it's beyond hope.

PUT UP = Provide SOME evidence

SHUT UP = You CANNOT provide ANY evidence

I go with the latter. This is a pathetic thread, your "arguments" are baseless with no supporting evidence. You OPINIONS do not constitute PROOF. Do you even know HOW to set out an argument? NO.

I agree this thread is a lost cause. Despite repeated requests, the OP has constantly refused to offer any evidence in support of the original claim. For some bizarre reason I was under the impression that this was a pre-requisiste for any kind of reasonable debate on an issue. If Turbs has nothing else to offer, there's no point in me contributing either.

I'm with you!!! shall we let this fool carry on talking to himself, because nobody else is listening?

Has turbonium won an argument since 1960? If not, what conclusion can be drawn?

As far as I see, your base logic has value, turbonium. I think the argument ultimately fails in that there is not sufficient evidence and therefore lack of a wider argument in favour of the claimed Trieste achievement being false. Still, it is notable you have generated as much rhetoric from others as actual reasoning against your claim.

I’m not completely swayed by either side here and under the discussed circumstances don’t understand how anyone could be accepting without a shadow of doubt of the Trieste’s declared feat. To say there is no chance the Trieste’s capabilities were exaggerated is to deny that propaganda techniques exist, to claim that governmental establishments never conceal the truth and to believe that recorded history is unquestionable - in summary, to demonstrate a terrible blinkeredness.

We can all stubbornly declare our version of events is undeniably correct but, without taking a side, I will say I am 60/40 in favour the Trieste did reach the depths of Challenger Deep. Does anyone else feel like being a little more open-minded to the possibilities, either way, in this case?

You asked me earlier...

"How about demonstrating that the pressure vessel design could not withstand the pressure at the bottom of Challenger Deep?"

And so...

Although research programs carried out by scientists around the world began in the 1950s and continue to this day using manned submersibles, the 1970s marked a fundamental change in their use. This shift in focus came as technological improvements in deep submergence engineering made it possible for manned submersibles to go much deeper than before. Principal among these improvements was the fabrication of higher-strength steel and titanium pressure spheres.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9702&page=70

Say what? They state that technological improvements "made it possible for manned submersibles to go much deeper than before"- starting in the 1970's !!

If the Trieste account is really true, then what is claimed above is not true - which means the Trieste went "much deeper" than any other manned submersible to this day. Not the other way around.

This is very curious. It contradicts the Trieste claim.

I'll keep on digging, and see what comes of it...



Another point I brought up on the moon hoax thread, if you recall....

The Trieste account of the environment at the bottom of Challenger Deep is contradicted by the findings of "Kaiko", the Japanese unmanned vessel.

I'll recap one of the main points of contradiction....

According to Piccard, "The bottom appeared light and clear, a waste of firm diatomaceous ooze".

http://www.kerala.com/wiki-Mariana_Trench

"Most of this is sediment," he says, indicating the flat, featureless environment recorded by Kaiko's video camera. "It's mainly sands and clays which have been brought down from the upper slopes of the trench—the kind of stuff we have seen a lot of in other expeditions. There's also a lot of detritus from the water above."

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe.../mg15220548.100

The Trieste claim the bottom floor is "light and clear", while the Kaiko mission revealed that it mostly consists of sediment - sands and clays - which are/have been quite commonly found in other areas.

The Kaiko account is supported by many photos, videos and retrieved samples. The Trieste account has no supporting evidence.


There appears to be 2, very different accounts, regarding the overall appearance of the bottom floor. Both can't be right.

This is a truly PATHETIC argument!!! Follow your own link and go to Page 68, they also say that Trieste was the FIRST Bathyscaphe to reach the bottom of the Marianas Trench.... your deceit in only referring to submersibles is repre hensible, I have pasted the APPROPRIATE section from page 68 below, because your dishonesty astounds me





It does EXACTLY the opposite...fool







DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT DIATOMACEOUS SEDIMENTS LOKK LIKE? NO!!!!

Both expeditions are reporting EXACTLY the same observations



Two Identical accounts!!! A pity your stupid conspiracy theory matches your inability to research, and provide ALL the facts for discussion

Amazing how it's possible to infer so much from one quote!

The article you quoted from is 50 Years of Ocean Discovery: National Science Foundation 1950-2000. You can read it in its entirety at books.google.com.

Here's another quote from that very same article.

"Trieste's historic dive to the bottom of Challenger Deep in 1960 clearly demonstrated that man could penetrate the oceans to even their greatest depth."

Sounds fairly clear that the author does not entertain the notion that Trieste's claims were exaggerated. Perhaps the sentence you quoted was sloppily constructed, or the author's meaning mis-construed.

The very next sentence reads:-

"But the bathyscaph was large and difficult to operate and maintain in the open sea many miles from its home base."

This should give you an idea as to why bathyscaph technology, whilst capable of reaching tremendous depths, is not the most useful design for deep-sea manned exploration.



Can you please specifiy why these two statements are contradictory?



I agree that Trieste suffers from a lack of photographic evidence, but this lack of evidence cannot be construed as proof they did not go.



Strange, then, that the Trieste mission was able to successfully predict that small shrimp would be found at the bottom of Challenger Deep - a fact confirmed by Kaiko!

These points were addresses in the moon hoax thread in this post.

To recap the comment...

This shift in focus came as technological improvements in deep submergence engineering made it possible for manned submersibles to go much deeper than before. Principal among these improvements was the fabrication of higher-strength steel and titanium pressure spheres.

I said that if the Trieste account is really true, then what is claimed above is not true. It contradicts the Trieste claim.

Now, you suggest that the sentence "was sloppily constructed", which makes it appear to contradict the Trieste claim. Which is possible.

You also suggest "the author's meaning" was "mis-construed". This isn't possible, because the claim clearly contradicts the Trieste claim.

So, I said this was very curious, because that's how I see it.

I also said that I'll look into it further. And I left it at that.

Seems like a reasonable approach to me, before jumping to all sorts of conclusions.



Two claims. First, the bottom is not "light and clear". It is a dull, muddy brown, as shown in these images...


Collection of a mud sample at a depth of 10897 m from Challenger Deep

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/bio/detal/MPR1.html

At the bottom of the Mariana Trench, brown soft sediment was widespread and no rock was observed.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...gi?artid=106178

This is not "light and clear", under any terms or description.

Second, the Trieste crew claim it is "a waste of firm diatomaceous ooze". A diatomaceous ooze is defined as.. A pelagic, siliceous sediment composed of more than 30% diatom tests, up to 40% calcium carbonate, and up to 25% mineral grains.

Compare that to Kaiko's findings...

From the samples, Kitazato's team recovered numerous bacteria and 432 living foraminifera. The latter measure a few dozen mm across; hundreds could crowd on to a pinhead. Most of the foraminifera were soft-walled, either spherical or needle-shaped, and coloured brown. Foraminifera are perhaps the most abundant ocean life after bacteria ; most have intricate shells made of calcium carbonate. But these shells are absent from the foraminifera found in Challenger Deep. Instead, 85% of the researchers' haul belongs to a soft-walled group called allogromiids, which make up only 5-20% of other foraminiferan communities nearer the surface. This is probably because the deepest ocean has little calcium carbonate, meaning that microbes may not be able to build a shell. As you go deeper and deeper you get to a depth called the calcium compensation point : below that you tend to get soft-walled foraminifera. Kitazato's group speculates that soft foraminifera thrive in the Mariana mud because they are among the few creatures that can withstand the huge pressures there.

http://focosi.altervista.org/growthconditions.html

The sediment is not "up to 40% calcium carbonate", nor is it "siliceous". Nor is it "more than 30% diatom tests"...

diatoms are a major group of eukaryotic algae, and are one of the most common types of phytoplankton..A characteristic feature of diatom cells is that they are encased within a unique cell wall made of silica (hydrated silicon dioxide) called a frustule.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom

Phytoplankton obtain energy through a process called photosynthesis and must therefore live in the well-lit surface layer (termed the euphotic zone) of an ocean, sea, lake, or other body of water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton




True, and I never claimed it did.



Actually, they claimed to have found...Soles or flounder about 30 cm (1 ft) long, as well as shrimp

We'll address the shrimp claim first -

Kaiko found amphipods, which are small, shrimp-like crustaceans.

True shrimp are swimming, decapod crustaceans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp

Now, the soles/flounder claim...

Soles and Flounder are flatfish...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sole_(fish)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flounder

The Actinopterygii (the plural form of Actinopterygius) comprise the class of the ray-finned fishes...actinopterygians are the dominant class of vertebrates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray-finned_fish

They specifically claim to have seen such vertebrates...

".... And as we were settling this final fathom, I saw a wonderful thing. Lying on the bottom just beneath us was some type of flatfish, resembling a sole, about 1 foot long and 6 inches across. Even as I saw him, his two round eyes on top of his head spied us - a monster of steel - invading his silent realm. Eyes? Why should he have eyes? Merely to see phosphorescence? The floodlight that bathed him was the first real light ever to enter this hadal realm. Here, in an instant, was the answer that biologists had asked for the decades. Could life exist in the greatest depths of the ocean? It could! And not only that, here apparently, was a true, bony teleost fish, not a primitive ray or elasmobranch. Yes, a highly evolved vertebrate, in time’s arrow very close to man himself. Slowly, extremely slowly, this flatfish swam away. Moving along the bottom, partly in the ooze and partly in the water, he disappeared into his night. Slowly too - perhaps everything is slow at the bottom of the sea - Walsh and I shook hands. In Seven Miles Down: The Story of the Bathyscaph Trieste (1961) by J. Piccard and R. S. Dietz. pp. 172-174.

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/history/quot.../soundings.html

Vertebrates cannot survive within the extreme pressure environment which exists at such depths. The Kaiko spent much more time at the bottom than the Trieste supposedly did, and didn't find any vertebrates at all. Not to mention any 1 foot-long vertebrate!

I don't know how the Trieste account could be any more contradictory, postie.

The general appearance of the floor. The physical properties of the floor. The biological environment. Not one of these features, as described by the Trieste crew, are remotely similar to the Kaiko account.

Maybe you should ask yourself why that would be?

You are confusing the difference between bathyscaphes and submersibles....... However, that seems to be your entire problem in arguing your case



Oh yes... thats rich coming from your wildly unsubstantiated claims




Image 2 particularly looks light and clear to me....



It is according to my understanding.... just silly nit-picking of semantics.



As they were only able to make VISUAL observations (were not able to take samples) then their description appears entirely valid.




Until they die and lose buoyancy and sink to the depths where thay become important indicators of age in sedimentary deposits






Oh look!!! you agree with finding of shrimp...


Really? Thanks for the heads-up



And youre evidence is?......


Much of their time was spent extracting a core sample, so I would say that the chances of ANY fish swimming into their field of view was always going to be remote.


The general appearance of the floor. The physical properties of the floor. The biological environment. All OF THESE these features, as described by the Trieste crew, are IDENTICAL to the Kaiko account.

Ditto what Keithisco said.

In addition, why would they lie about seeing flatfish and shrimp? It seemed to go against scientific expectations at the time. They ran the risk of subsequent missions not discovering any life at all.

"Marine biologists later disputed their observations, claiming that no fish could survive the 17,000 psi pressure at such depths."
Source

The fact that "shrimp" or "shrimp-like creatures" (amphipods) were spotted by both Trieste and Kaiko is good supporting evidence in favour of Trieste.

No, you are the one who is confused...

A bathyscape, bathyscaphe, or bathyscaph is a free-diving self-propelled deep-sea diving submersible, consisting of a crew cabin similar to a bathysphere suspended below a float

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe





Like the surface would look "light and clear" even if it was pitch black - that's the effect of 250-watt halogen lights pointing at it. But the actual surface itself is not "light and clear".



Oh look!! You think "shrimp" means the same thing as "shrimp-like"!



That's nonsense. In addition to the six halogen lights I mentioned, Kaiko was also equipped with several video cameras and a still camera.

Compare that to the Trieste...

Observation of the sea outside the craft was conducted directly by eye, via a single highly-tapered cone-shaped block of Lucite (Plexiglas) plastic, the only transparent substance identified which would withstand the needed pressure, at the design hull thickness. Outside illumination for the craft was provided by quartz arc-light bulbs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste

The Kaiko spent 45 minutes at the bottom, over twice as long as the Trieste supposedly did (20 minutes). And Kaiko had far superior equipment, to observe more of the surrounding area, with outstanding clarity.

Your argument is ridiculous.

Please re-consider how wise it is to agree with someone who thinks a bathyscape isn't a submersible....



Maybe it has something to do with why people claim to have gone to Planet X in alien spacecraft, or claim they saw Elvis eating fried chicken at Stumpy's Diner - the story sounds far-fetched, but it generates plenty of publicity and attention.

Obviously, the Trieste claim is not nearly as far-fetched as those examples, but there may be a similar psychology behind it - a desire for fame and attention.

Indeed, this is just what happened with the Trieste claim. It's one of the Trieste's most prominent claims noted by other sources.



And the most disputed claim.



No. The Trieste's "shrimp" claim actually contradicts the Kaiko's findings.

The Trieste crew specifically claimed to have seen shrimp - not something "shrimp-like".

Shrimp are arthropods. The Kaiko found amphipods. Shrimp are typically 4-6" long by the time they leave the larval stage, to swim the oceans. Amphipods are much smaller...

During the survey, over 130 specimens of amphipods, Hirondellea gigas, were collected by baited traps. The total length of the largest specimen was over 45mm

http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/1998/07/980705.htm

The most serious flaw with your argument is that they are unmistakeably different from each other.

You're suggesting that the Trieste crew would mistake a much smaller, distinctly different species (amphipod) as a common shrimp.

That would mean the only "supporting evidence" for the Trieste's "shrimp" claim is not even accurate or correct.

And that's the best case you could make for your argument.

And it's far from good.

Just semantics. No-one today is building Bathyscapes (as far as I know) because they are very limited in their scientific capabilities. Also, very expensive to maintain and notoriously difficult to obtain Safety Certification to operate.
The common usage for the term "submersible" is any vehicle (ROV) that actually is able to submerge. But as I say, your argument has been reduced to simple semantics.




Perhaps you prefr this quote: "continued the dive, however, finally touching down in "snuff-colored ooze" at 35,800 feet. To Walsh, the experience was like "being in a big bowl of milk."
As witnessed by YOUR images. I expect you to say that "Snuff-Coloured" is not the same.



You bet I do:



And just to larify the point:







Their sightings strike me as being entirely consistent.




Correct, which kinda proves another point that returning men is an expensive, proposition, and without serious, scientific benefit is not really viable. However, I am aware that people are seriously considering this.

All in all, your arguments are simply one of semantics. You have not addressed the question of why the logs are falsified, you have taken quotes out of their context, and have simply kept proving that unmanned exploration is less expensive, more scientifically valid, and easier to support.

Again, ditto what Keithisco said, notwithstanding a battle of semantics over "bathyscaphe" being a subset of "manned submersible".

Sorry Turbs, but I think you're showing how desperate your argument is when you're trying to drive a wedge between an eye-witness report of "shrimp" (or even a "new type of shrimp") observed through a thick, cone-shaped lump of plexiglass, at a distance of several feet; and "shrimp-like creatures" which were retrieved in samples and studied up close back on the surface.

This is actually very good corroborative evidence in favour of Trieste, so it's little wonder you're resorting this argument over the definition of shrimp. No offence, but that's how it seems to me, and it gets really wearisome debating issues when it's reduced to "pedantic semantics".

This is, quite simply, the most pathetic premise for a thread I have ever seen on this forum.







<edit> In an attempt to be civil I will say: the reason no one has sent manned things down to that depth again is that no one CARES enough to spend the time and money and risk on it. Unmanned things can get there far easier and, face it, there is a LOT less interest in the very deep ocean than in some other areas. There's a difference between being able to do something and being able to do it with the WILL you have and the RESOURCES any one group has.

Seems to me the middle of the 20th century was, i dunno, BOLDER than today. People were willing to take larger risks in order to do grand things. Hell, when the apollo program was cancelled some people thought of using one of the saturn rockets to send 3 guys on a year long flyby of Venus! That was scrapped, but it shows the spirit of various programs then.

You've got it completely backwards, postie. The only argument showing desperation is yours, without any doubt.

Honestly - if the best evidence you can offer in support for the Trieste claims is to keep going on and on about how both groups saw "shrimp" at the bottom of Challenger Deep, it's time to give the last rites, is it not?

A brief recap -

The Trieste claim has no valid evidence. No photos, videos, or physical samples. Not even one lousy photo exists that might help to support their claim.

The Trieste crew gave a totally different description of the environment at the bottom of Challenger Deep than the Kaiko found, and filmed, and retrieved via physical samples.
Well, except for the "shrimp", which you believe is "very good corroborative evidence in favour of Trieste".

Somehow, you feel that the overwhelming majority of contradictory observations in the Trieste account are totally insignificant when compared to the "shrimp" observations...

So what if the bottom is not really "light and clear"? And what's the big deal that foot-long flatfish weren't found by Kaiko? Who cares if flatfish really couldn't survive in such an extreme, high-pressure environment?

No. To you, all that really matters is how Trieste claims to have seen "shrimp", and that Kaiko found amphipods, which are commonly described as being "shrimp-like"!!

Amphipods are not really shrimp, of course. But since they are commonly described as being "shrimp-like", you've come to the conclusion that this is the most relevant point. They look completely different in size and shape, and would NEVER be mistaken for one another by experienced pros in the field, such as Trieste's crew.

They would know the difference between a shrimp and an amphipod. They said they saw actual shrimp. The Kaiko did not find actual shrimp. The Kaiko found amphipods.

Do you really believe that both very experienced crewmembers of the Trieste somehow managed to mistake an amphipod for a shrimp?

I guess that you have to believe that, otherwise you'd have nothing at all to base your argument on.

No need to go over how we're still technologically incapable of duplicating the Trieste's fake achievement...

At least you realize it's better to be civil when discussing the issues.

But next time, try and actually read the thread first, before you go off and make uninformed and inaccurate statements such as these.

Just a thought....nothing personal..

Rant.. no evidence. Rant.....everybody else is wrong. Rant.... desperation shown by your lack of civility

Sheer desperation... this really is sad. Still waiting for you to show which parts of the logs were falsified, but then again you CANT can you?

Still waiting for you to show where ANYBODY else, especially in the same field of sub-sea exploration makes the same ludicrous claims as you do. Even the kaiko team stand in admiration of Trieste's achievements, and if they thought it never happened they would be the first to say so.

Calling the Trieste team Liars is the most underhand, and ungentlemanly retort. I find your manners deplorable and against the true spirit of UM. Argument requires YOU to furnish proof of your extravagant and outrageous slide into creating a myth out of a real Scientific endeavour!

Turbs, you are the one claiming that Trieste could not possibly have descended Challenger Deep. I'm only challenging your assertion that it was definitely a hoax. I have no way of knowing for certain whether their claims are defintiely correct. I just think that someone making such a bold claim as yours should be willing to back up there claim with something of substance, rather than speculation.



Turbs, I'm not trying to prove the validity of Trieste's claims. Rightly or wrongly, it's an historically and scientifically accepted fact. You are trying to prove that it was all a hoax, hence the burden of proof lies at your door.



I agree that there is a lack of physical evidence, but this in itself cannot be considered proof that they did not go, in the same way that a lack of a photograph of Hillary at the top of Everest doesn't mean he didn't climb it.



That's the spin that you're putting on it, and again it comes down to a pedantic examination of the eye-witness statements, trying to magnify any slight differences in descriptions and then effetively claim that because the experiences of Trieste and Kaiko weren't completely identical in every respect, that Trieste must have been faked.




I think this is what the problem is. You see minor differences in the descriptions as somehow being completely contradictory. For example, Kaiko not seeing any flatfish, or Trieste not seeing any sea cucumbers. How can such discrepancies possibly be construed as proof that Triests was faked?

Are you claiming that flatfish cannot possibly survive at such depths? What is your evidence for this?



Completely different in size and shape? Here's an image of one of the amphipod collected by Kaiko. The largest speciment was about 2 inches long.

Now, imagine seeing that creature as it scurries along the bottom of the sea-bed, with the back of its shell uppermost, at a distance of several feet, while peering through a highly tapered block of very thick lucite. Now put yourself in the eyes of an economist, who later joined his father business contructing and operating bathyscaphes, with no formal training or background in Marine Biological Science, observing it and trying to describe it.

Can you really use the very minor difference between Piccard describing what he saw as a shrimp, and Kaiko discovering that they were actually amphipods (see photo). How is it possible to construe this statement by Piccard as being so contradictory that it's evidence in favour of a hoax?





Indeed.

Where did you cite a source for these logs? Or have you?



It's based on my own findings. I don't know if anybody in the related fields disputes the Trieste story, in private or in public. I've cited some papers which contradict the Trieste claims, and I find that to be quite odd.

Where did you read how the Kaiko team "stand in admiration of Trieste's achievements"? The most I've found are a few very brief comments, like this...

In 1960, a U.S. manned submersible, the TRIESTE, reached the Challenger Deep, and reported that the crew found living organisms there. The TRIESTE, however, was unable to take any sample of these living organisms.

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/30th/part1/page3.html



That's a bunch of tripe. I'm basing my view on the evidence, both for and against the Trieste's claims. From all the evidence I've been able to find, I've become convinced it was a hoax.

Even at the time, there were many experts who strongly disputed their claims about seeing flatfish. Nothing has ever been found since that time which would make them change their minds. That hardly makes those experts "underhanded" for disputing the claims of Trieste's crew.



Get off the soapbox. I'm simply trying to get to the truth of the matter. The evidence shows that the Trieste claim is outrageous, not the contrary.

The point is that these logs are of Legal Stature. It is for you to say where they have been falsified. I suspect you cant do this!!!




You have done no such thing!!!


Has ANY member of the team disputed the fact that Trieste made the voyage?? NO, if there was any doubt then they would be the first to suggest it never happened!!!



No you are not!! That is plain disingenuous rubbish. You want to be thought of as the "person" who first raised this notion!!



NAME THE EXPERTS.... Oh, I forgot, you cant..... And it is still only you who claim it never happened. Send you theory off to Kaiko, and post here their response. Should shut you up for good.





There is only one person here on a soapbox, why is that? Because you are the only person on the planet to dispute the voyage. Give it up.... you have been proven wrong in EVERY claim you have made.....
But I guess, there's one born every minute....

After spending a fortune over the past 20 years, and realizing they're still 4,000 feet away from building a manned submersible as "amazing" as the Trieste, they probably do think it's a hoax.



Apparently, so do you...







It was reported that a sole-like fish about 33cm long was seen from the bathyscaphe Trieste at a depth of 10918m in the Challenger Deep (Marianas Trench) in the western Pacific on 24 Jan 1960. This sighting, however, has been strongly challenged by many authorities, who still regard the brotudids of the genus Bassogigas as the deepest-living vertebrates.

http://www.science.edu.sg/ssc/detailed.jsp...nt=4&cat=43

Are you saying they made all this up? That saying many authorities strongly challenged the claim is a 'despicable, underhanded lie', because they didn't name the authorities?

I can't wait for your answer to that one....

Btw...

The flatfish claim is not regarded as authentic, in scientific circles. Clearly, it's still strongly disputed by the experts.

In other words, the most significant discovery claimed by the Trieste crew, and none of the experts have ever believed it!!

So the experts could only assume that the Trieste crew either made it up on purpose, or that they made a huge mistake in their observations.

Either way, the experts see problems with the Trieste story.

This just YOUR opinion, why have they not stated this temselves? Because they do not buy into your nonsense



As usual you have only posted HALF the quoted response, No "authorities" are cited, or referenced, to support this claim. Dont you find that strange?
Here is the first half - from the SAME source



So.... a specimen has been recovered from 8300m.... Hmmm interesting, now why didnt you want to share this information with us?

http://www.science.edu.sg/ssc/detailed.jsp...nt=4&cat=43



Happy to oblige....All This Up? ALL of what? this is the total content of your link... not exactly exhaustive wouldnt you say??