Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

What sank the USS San Diego back in 1918 ?

24 posts in this topic

 

I think a torpedo from a German submarine sounds most likely.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so they are considering the crazy options but who will check the 3D scans against known Godzilla attacks or Alien heats rays?  Oh yeah, mainstream scientists and their agenda to hide knowledge from us no doubt.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did WW1 era U-boats have the range and/or logistics backup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, seanjo said:

Did WW1 era U-boats have the range and/or logistics backup?

Looks to have been very rare, could not find a date for the WW1 action.

Less than six weeks after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the hostilities of the Second World War had arrived on America’s East Coast and North Carolina’s beaches. This was not the first time that German U-boats had come to United States waters. During World War I, three U-boats sank ten ships off the Tar Heel coast in what primarily was considered a demonstration of German naval power.

From this article

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Almighty Evan said:

Looks to have been very rare, could not find a date for the WW1 action.

Less than six weeks after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the hostilities of the Second World War had arrived on America’s East Coast and North Carolina’s beaches. This was not the first time that German U-boats had come to United States waters. During World War I, three U-boats sank ten ships off the Tar Heel coast in what primarily was considered a demonstration of German naval power.

From this article

So it is entirely possible a U-boat sank this ship.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

Just reading the wiki page, in July 1918 there was a u boat attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Orleans

This was on the 21st and the USS San Diego was in the 19th. It is imo very likely this was the same U-boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if there's a documentary about this anywhere.and I believe it could be an underwater mine with the speed of the sinking

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Adampadum123 said:

Anyone know if there's a documentary about this anywhere.and I believe it could be an underwater mine with the speed of the sinking

Placed by the U Boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the mine could have been placed previous 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no proof of a U boat 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those were very, i mean very, interesting times. One of most turbulent periods in our history. Since it happened in 1918 it is unrealistic to think of false flag op but can't be neglected either.

U-boats had means to do this attack and only with propper documentation of U-boat operations could we actually link the two. When i think of it, hmm, those files would be interesting read, hopefully someone wrote good book about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Nemo and the Nautilus 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 9:20 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Those were very, i mean very, interesting times. One of most turbulent periods in our history. Since it happened in 1918 it is unrealistic to think of false flag op but can't be neglected either.

U-boats had means to do this attack and only with propper documentation of U-boat operations could we actually link the two. When i think of it, hmm, those files would be interesting read, hopefully someone wrote good book about it.

Why is it that, given the USA had been involved in WW1 for more than a year at the time of the sinking (and thus had actual declared enemies) your first thought is of a false flag op? Even if you think it's unrealistic, you still think it can't be dismissed? Why?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Peter B said:

Why is it that, given the USA had been involved in WW1 for more than a year at the time of the sinking (and thus had actual declared enemies) your first thought is of a false flag op? Even if you think it's unrealistic, you still think it can't be dismissed? Why?

I never said that, not in the way which you see it, so read again please.

I've said that, because it happened in 1918, it is unrealistic to think of false flag, as you can see if you read my post again but i also added that such thing can't be neglected either.

So it's easy to notice that i haven't '' first thought of false flag '' as you, somehow, figured it out...

Period of late 1800s up to breakup of Soviet Union is what shaped our world of today, hence why i label that period as very interesting and many events from that period are shrouded in darkest and most dirty clothing.

Do you know what happened with USS San Diego for sure? If so you can share the information and shed some light on one of numerous events from that period.

Hell, many people still believe that it was only murder of Arch Duke which started the World War 1...

There is your answer m8, why do you think that false flag should be dismissed? If you think that only nations were players in world events from that period, with all respect, you fool yourself by large my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you did not actually answer the question of why

if we're going by the logic of "it could have been *improbable thing*" then why not bees

it was sunk by bees. you can't dismiss that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By gravitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2017 at 11:43 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

I never said that, not in the way which you see it, so read again please.

I've said that, because it happened in 1918, it is unrealistic to think of false flag, as you can see if you read my post again but i also added that such thing can't be neglected either.

So it's easy to notice that i haven't '' first thought of false flag '' as you, somehow, figured it out...

Period of late 1800s up to breakup of Soviet Union is what shaped our world of today, hence why i label that period as very interesting and many events from that period are shrouded in darkest and most dirty clothing.

Do you know what happened with USS San Diego for sure? If so you can share the information and shed some light on one of numerous events from that period.

Hell, many people still believe that it was only murder of Arch Duke which started the World War 1...

There is your answer m8, why do you think that false flag should be dismissed? If you think that only nations were players in world events from that period, with all respect, you fool yourself by large my friend.

Okay, I could have phrased the first part of my answer better, and I accept you consider FF to be unrealistic.

But I'd still appreciate finding out why you think it can't be ruled out. Sure, I can't completely rule it out either, but from my understanding of the sinking, the nature of the ship, and the politics of the time, I'd rule it out beyond reasonable doubt, in the same way I'd rule out it being sunk by a German battleship.

AIUI the sinking of the ship is generally credited to either a German torpedo or mine. A mine is considered less likely as the explosion occurred adjacent to the engine rooms, and a ship striking a mine is more likely to hit it near the front of the ship.

Given the ship is sitting on the sea floor upside down in less than 40 metres of water (meaning the point of the explosion is visible) we can presumably rule out an internal explosion (ammunition and coal explosions sank other warships at this time) as they would have presumably bent hull plates outwards.

Another possibility which can't be ruled out is accidental attack, although this would have required the ship to either hit a mine laid by the US Navy itself or to be attacked by a US Navy submarine mistaking the ship for...what?

So if it was to be sunk in a false flag attack, the first question has to be how was it done. And the second is why.

I've already explained that "how" is a problem for an accidental attack. It gets even harder for a false flag attack: we can rule out an internal explosion; a mine can't be made to intercept a warship but instead has to rely on the ship blundering into it, making it an unreliable method for undertaking a false flag attack; and the US Navy had few submarines in WW1, and there's no plausible reason I can see by which an American submarine commander could be convinced to attack a ship which is very obviously a fellow American warship.

Now we get to why. Simply, why would the US Government or the military want to sink one of its own warships? It's already at war with Germany, so the idea of losing warships to a foreign power wasn't unexpected (although preferably to be avoided) and at the time of the sinking the USA was just ramping up the number of soldiers committed to the Western Front. And in the preceding couple of years it had launched something like half a dozen battleships - each of them far more powerful than the outdated armoured cruiser that the USS San Diego was.

So yes, could you please tell me why the idea of a false flag attack being responsible for the sinking of the USS San Diego is even on the horizon.

And then, if you'd like to educate me (and no doubt others) as to how the mainstream view of history of the time is incorrect, I'm happy to be informed (in another thread if you wish).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Peter B said:

Okay, I could have phrased the first part of my answer better, and I accept you consider FF to be unrealistic.

But I'd still appreciate finding out why you think it can't be ruled out. Sure, I can't completely rule it out either, but from my understanding of the sinking, the nature of the ship, and the politics of the time, I'd rule it out beyond reasonable doubt, in the same way I'd rule out it being sunk by a German battleship.

AIUI the sinking of the ship is generally credited to either a German torpedo or mine. A mine is considered less likely as the explosion occurred adjacent to the engine rooms, and a ship striking a mine is more likely to hit it near the front of the ship.

Given the ship is sitting on the sea floor upside down in less than 40 metres of water (meaning the point of the explosion is visible) we can presumably rule out an internal explosion (ammunition and coal explosions sank other warships at this time) as they would have presumably bent hull plates outwards.

Another possibility which can't be ruled out is accidental attack, although this would have required the ship to either hit a mine laid by the US Navy itself or to be attacked by a US Navy submarine mistaking the ship for...what?

So if it was to be sunk in a false flag attack, the first question has to be how was it done. And the second is why.

I've already explained that "how" is a problem for an accidental attack. It gets even harder for a false flag attack: we can rule out an internal explosion; a mine can't be made to intercept a warship but instead has to rely on the ship blundering into it, making it an unreliable method for undertaking a false flag attack; and the US Navy had few submarines in WW1, and there's no plausible reason I can see by which an American submarine commander could be convinced to attack a ship which is very obviously a fellow American warship.

Now we get to why. Simply, why would the US Government or the military want to sink one of its own warships? It's already at war with Germany, so the idea of losing warships to a foreign power wasn't unexpected (although preferably to be avoided) and at the time of the sinking the USA was just ramping up the number of soldiers committed to the Western Front. And in the preceding couple of years it had launched something like half a dozen battleships - each of them far more powerful than the outdated armoured cruiser that the USS San Diego was.

So yes, could you please tell me why the idea of a false flag attack being responsible for the sinking of the USS San Diego is even on the horizon.

And then, if you'd like to educate me (and no doubt others) as to how the mainstream view of history of the time is incorrect, I'm happy to be informed (in another thread if you wish).

I've listened to what you have to say and I therefore conclude false flag conspiracy.

Are we now happy to rule out alien heat ray or is that still on the table?

Edited by I'mConvinced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Peter B said:

Okay, I could have phrased the first part of my answer better, and I accept you consider FF to be unrealistic.

But I'd still appreciate finding out why you think it can't be ruled out. Sure, I can't completely rule it out either, but from my understanding of the sinking, the nature of the ship, and the politics of the time, I'd rule it out beyond reasonable doubt, in the same way I'd rule out it being sunk by a German battleship.

AIUI the sinking of the ship is generally credited to either a German torpedo or mine. A mine is considered less likely as the explosion occurred adjacent to the engine rooms, and a ship striking a mine is more likely to hit it near the front of the ship.

Given the ship is sitting on the sea floor upside down in less than 40 metres of water (meaning the point of the explosion is visible) we can presumably rule out an internal explosion (ammunition and coal explosions sank other warships at this time) as they would have presumably bent hull plates outwards.

Another possibility which can't be ruled out is accidental attack, although this would have required the ship to either hit a mine laid by the US Navy itself or to be attacked by a US Navy submarine mistaking the ship for...what?

So if it was to be sunk in a false flag attack, the first question has to be how was it done. And the second is why.

I've already explained that "how" is a problem for an accidental attack. It gets even harder for a false flag attack: we can rule out an internal explosion; a mine can't be made to intercept a warship but instead has to rely on the ship blundering into it, making it an unreliable method for undertaking a false flag attack; and the US Navy had few submarines in WW1, and there's no plausible reason I can see by which an American submarine commander could be convinced to attack a ship which is very obviously a fellow American warship.

Now we get to why. Simply, why would the US Government or the military want to sink one of its own warships? It's already at war with Germany, so the idea of losing warships to a foreign power wasn't unexpected (although preferably to be avoided) and at the time of the sinking the USA was just ramping up the number of soldiers committed to the Western Front. And in the preceding couple of years it had launched something like half a dozen battleships - each of them far more powerful than the outdated armoured cruiser that the USS San Diego was.

So yes, could you please tell me why the idea of a false flag attack being responsible for the sinking of the USS San Diego is even on the horizon.

And then, if you'd like to educate me (and no doubt others) as to how the mainstream view of history of the time is incorrect, I'm happy to be informed (in another thread if you wish).

I mostly agree with you but you fail to understand me, there is possibility of false flag being 'on horizon'. My comment was pointing out, most importantly, that period from 1914 to 1945 was violent period with many players involved and we still do not know even half of truth about that period.

Any event at time period from 1914 to 1945 could be used ( or better said, abused ) to influence public oppinion at the time ( as in terms of making greater public support for war ) and that was major factor for American interventions in European wars to be possible.

Can you rule out that sinking of American ship, near American coast ( very important fact ) could not, in any way, have greater influence over American politics and views of the war? Such events could indeed be used in many ways and politicians are creative indeed. At the time of war news were officially controlled by government ( letters between Lord Northclife and his affiliates openly state this ).

This doesn't imply that USS San Diego was false flag but, as even saboteurs have a part in this story : http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan99/vanwyk.htm ( alto i do not believe in information which is made by torture ) - it surely is unclear what happened. 

As you can see in this article : http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sd-me-usssandiego-exploration-20170913-story.html, there is through investigation about the cause of sinking and data will be made available next summer, as stated in the article. So, we do not know what happened to be able to rule out anything, no matter how unlikely it is but you can not dismiss possibility of this event being used to change public opinion. 

About mainstream history... Do you think that murder of Arch Duke was reason that World War 1 was fought? Germany as new rising power had nothing to do with it? Russia and Britain were happy to coexist with strong Germany? I am not sure why would you ask to be educated about common knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2017 at 10:10 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

I mostly agree with you but you fail to understand me, there is possibility of false flag being 'on horizon'. My comment was pointing out, most importantly, that period from 1914 to 1945 was violent period with many players involved and we still do not know even half of truth about that period.

Any event at time period from 1914 to 1945 could be used ( or better said, abused ) to influence public oppinion at the time ( as in terms of making greater public support for war ) and that was major factor for American interventions in European wars to be possible.

Can you rule out that sinking of American ship, near American coast ( very important fact ) could not, in any way, have greater influence over American politics and views of the war? Such events could indeed be used in many ways and politicians are creative indeed. At the time of war news were officially controlled by government ( letters between Lord Northclife and his affiliates openly state this ).

This doesn't imply that USS San Diego was false flag but, as even saboteurs have a part in this story : http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan99/vanwyk.htm ( alto i do not believe in information which is made by torture ) - it surely is unclear what happened. 

As you can see in this article : http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sd-me-usssandiego-exploration-20170913-story.html, there is through investigation about the cause of sinking and data will be made available next summer, as stated in the article. So, we do not know what happened to be able to rule out anything, no matter how unlikely it is but you can not dismiss possibility of this event being used to change public opinion. 

About mainstream history... Do you think that murder of Arch Duke was reason that World War 1 was fought? Germany as new rising power had nothing to do with it? Russia and Britain were happy to coexist with strong Germany? I am not sure why would you ask to be educated about common knowledge.

I don't doubt that there's still a fair bit about the period of the World Wars we don't know about yet. But for the time being I'm willing to accept the German Aggression theory for the outbreak of WW1 as originally developed by West German historian Fritz Fischer in the 1960s, based as it is on his examination of German government archives in the period leading up to the war. Thus my view is that the assassination of the Archduke was simply the convenient excuse used by the Austro-Hungarian and German governments to bring about a war that the leaders of the German government wanted.

Regarding the sinking of the USS San Diego, though, I’d still like to see an explanation for why anyone in the US government or military would want to sink one of their own ships in July 1918. Remember, this was the month in which the fortunes of war decisively swung in favour of the Allies; although it wasn’t clear at the time the Germans had by then launched the last of their Western Front offensives and the Allied armies there were starting to gain the initiative.

However, the German submarine explanation makes sense and has precedent: back in 1914 a German submarine sank three British armoured cruisers of similar tonnage in the space of 90 minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_22_September_1914). In other words, armoured cruisers were particularly vulnerable to torpedoes.

I accept that sabotage is also a possibility, though I would have thought it was a far less likely. I'm aware of various sabotage campaigns undertaken by German agents in neutral USA up to 1917, including an attempt to infect horses with anthrax. But the reason I consider it unlikely is that I would have thought war-time dockside security would make it difficult for non-authorised personnel to board a warship.

By contrast, as I pointed out in my previous post, every plausible way of undertaking a false flag attack was severely difficult: it’s essentially impossible to purposely attack a ship with a mine; the US Navy had few submarines in WW1 and in any case US submarines had no plausible target in US coastal waters in 1918; and an internal explosion of some sort can presumably be ruled out by an examination of the wreckage, which is easily accessible (though I note the impending study will test this).

Regarding government control of information, I had a look at newspaper articles at the time – the sinking of the San Diego was reported in Australia within a couple of days (link available on request), and in the most detailed report I found the crew themselves gave several different explanations to journalists: torpedo, mine and internal explosion. So while I accept that various news items were censored, altered or delayed, this particular piece of news seems to have been reported accurately and quickly.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points. I'd love it if you would share link to report. To see headlines, purely for information as i love to go over old newspapers. That study which takes place will surely explain a lot but all in all, i have to agree with what you say about this particular case, well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Good points. I'd love it if you would share link to report. To see headlines, purely for information as i love to go over old newspapers. That study which takes place will surely explain a lot but all in all, i have to agree with what you say about this particular case, well said.

No worries.

Here's the link to the main site: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/search?adv=y

NLA = National Library of Australia. They've scanned literally thousands of Australian newspapers from the early 19th century until recently. Articles are shown as screenshots of the original newspaper, along with the system's attempt at Optical Character Recognition. If you you want you can register in order to correct the OCR versions, and some people have turned it into a hobby.

Anyway, I searched: san diego; 1918-07-19 to 1918-08-01; New South Wales titles. The search produced 45 results. The first result had this article (Tweed Daily, Monday 22 July 1918):

Quote

A New York message alludes to the remarkable coolness and discipline aboard the San Diego when sinking, which made the task of rescuing the officers and crew easy. The vessel sank in 15 minutes after the explosion. Survivors told conflicting stories: some said the cruiser was torpedoed, and that the gunners fired at an object which was decks were awash: others said the explosion was internal, others that it was a mine. Many of the crew were compelled to jump into the water because they stayed aboard until the ship commenced to settle: one petty officer took his battle station, at the captain's order, when the explosion occurred, and, not being ordered to leave; stood stiffly at attention while the ship sank under him, and then swam to a lifeboat.

Bolding mine.

Edited by Peter B
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.