Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
turbonium

The Trieste story is pure nonsense

209 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

turbonium

An obscure topic, to most people - but I still think it's "thread-worthy"....

The Trieste supposedly sent men to the bottom of Challenger Deep - a depth of 10,900 m (~35,800 ft.) - in 1960. This claim was deemed 100% credible, at the time (1960), and since then, the official records still cite the event (as claimed) as a fact.

But there is a huge problem with this story - as of today, some 48 years later, we cannot duplicate this feat.

In fact, we have not been able to come close to matching it....

Shinkai 6500, which with a depth rating of 6500 meters is the deepest diving manned submersible today

http://www.ussubs.com/faq/deep.php3

There are no excuses which could account for it.

Have we tried to duplicate the Trieste feat since 1960? No. Because that feat is still well beyond our reach - even with 2008 technology. It's an unrealistic goal to set as of today. The claim that this goal was achieved in 1960 - is a pathetic joke!!

We haven't been inactive in this field for the past 48 years. We continue to develop technologies, and continue to set new depth records for manned submersibles (excluding the goofy Trieste claim, of course)

It can't be duplicated today - despite possessing vastly superior technology. It's not that we don't want to duplicate the feat - we simply can't - as of today, and for an unknown number of years in the future.

To address this...

I must have missed where you presented credible evidence for this "blatant fraud"...

Care to present it now??

First of all, you need to understand that I'm disputing and questioning the original Trieste claim. The burden of proof lies with their claim. That is the party which needs to "present credible evidence" for its original claim.

So what you really "missed" to begin with, was in finding anywhere the Trieste account had "presented credible evidence" for its authenticity.

The fact that it is impossible to duplicate the Trieste's (supposed) feat, even today is "credible evidence" beyond any dispute that the Trieste story is a blatant fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
name='turbonium' date='Jan 27 2008, 12:16 PM' post='2120707']

An obscure topic, to most people - but I still think it's "thread-worthy"....

The Trieste supposedly sent men to the bottom of Challenger Deep - a depth of 10,900 m (~35,800 ft.) - in 1960. This claim was deemed 100% credible, at the time (1960), and since then, the official records still cite the event (as claimed) as a fact.

But there is a huge problem with this story - as of today, some 48 years later, we cannot duplicate this feat.

In fact, we have not been able to come close to matching it....

Shinkai 6500, which with a depth rating of 6500 meters is the deepest diving manned submersible today

http://www.ussubs.com/faq/deep.php3

Not true

"It has been almost four years since the Japan Marine Science and Technology Center (JAMSTEC) sent an unmanned vehicle, Kaiko, to a depth of (11,911m) in the Challenger Deep, Marianas Trench. The ROV recorded video images of fish and measured hydrostatic pressure, salinity, and temperature."

The article was written in 1999, so the Japanese descent was in 1995

Link

Have we tried to duplicate the Trieste feat since 1960? No. Because that feat is still well beyond our reach - even with 2008 technology. It's an unrealistic goal to set as of today. The claim that this goal was achieved in 1960 - is a pathetic joke!!

See above rebuttal

It can't be duplicated today - despite possessing vastly superior technology. It's not that we don't want to duplicate the feat - we simply can't - as of today, and for an unknown number of years in the future.

See above rebuttal

First of all, you need to understand that I'm disputing and questioning the original Trieste claim. The burden of proof lies with their claim. That is the party which needs to "present credible evidence" for its original claim.

Use the same link. What "evidence" are you looking for exactly? Which parts of the account are you disputing, care to supply ANY evidence apart from your own beliefs?

The fact that it is impossible to duplicate the Trieste's (supposed) feat, even today is "credible evidence" beyond any dispute that the Trieste story is a blatant fraud.

Repeating something constantly will never it true with out credible evidence to the contrary. The Log of the Trieste II is in the Naval Museum, and as such is a legal document permissable in any Court of Law as evidence... What would be the Navy's motive for making a claim that was not true?

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Manned, not unmanned.

Read a little more carefully, else ye shall post such blunders once agin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
Manned, not unmanned.

Read a little more carefully, else ye shall post such blunders once agin.

Not at all!

It shows the technology is still with us, and if you care to read the link to the article it also gives you a good clue why manned submersibles are today irrelevant for such deep ocean study.

There has to be a very good reason for sending men back down to the Challenger Deep, fact is, there just isnt a good enough reason.

Anyways, care to offer any evidence for your ridiculous "conspiracy" theory? Such as "Why" it is a conspiracy, why the logs of the research vessels involved should be discounted? Who gained what, exactly from this venture?

I await your erudite reply with anticipation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Belial

I watched a TV show on the history channel about the trieste, i found it very interesting and what a brave thing to attempt and achieve. I don't think there is a need to repeat it as it was done to proove it could be, there are probably nuclear powered subs that belong to the military that routinely skirt the ocean floors of the world and it was probably down to the two who submerged that day.

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

I must confess to my share of the blame for this thread. I was using the Trieste expedition as an analogy in the Apollo debate - I really didn't think that anyone would seriously claim that it was an obviously faked mission.

Mind you, maybe Turbs really is onto something...

What proof is there that Hillary was the first to climb Everest? There isn't even a photo of him at the summit. His excuse? Norgay Tensing didn't know how to operate a camera. If you were going to be the first to climb Everest, surely you'd spend 5 minutes showing someone how to point a camera, adjust the focus, and press the shutter button?

Why should we take it for granted that Amundsen was the first to reach the South Pole? They could easily have faked the photos in a Norwegian glacial valley.

Who in their right mind would believe that Bob Beamon was able to jump an astonishing 29 feet in 1968, a feat that wasn't matched for 23 years??? Clearly this was faked to prepare people for the low-gravity antics they were going to be seeing in Apollo footage very shortly.

Laughably, NASA claim they soft-landed a probe on one of Saturns moons, Titan. Of course, there's no independent evidence of this, and noone has repeated this ridiculous claim, so obviously it is another fake mission.

NASA claim to have launched probes that have LEFT THE SOLAR SYSTEM!!! Where is the independent confirmation? They could say anything they like and no-one would know the difference. More faked missions, that aren't possible now with our far superior technology, and certainly weren't possible then.

In fact, why should we believe anything? Why should I believe that Pluto exists? I've never seen it. It could all be a big con by astronomers to keep the gravy-train research fund money coming in. Strange how they keep on findind new planets every now and then! The solar system just seems to keep on getting biger and bigger!

Those fantastic Hubble images? All Photoshopped to make astronomy seem sexy.

Black smokers? They don't exist, and were faked in a secret Navy base somewhere, again to keep the funding rolling in.

In fact, why should I believe anything I haven't done myself, or seen with my on eyes? I only have other people's word for it, and quite frankly, other people lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
I must confess to my share of the blame for this thread. I was using the Trieste expedition as an analogy in the Apollo debate - I really didn't think that anyone would seriously claim that it was an obviously faked mission.

Mind you, maybe Turbs really is onto something...

What proof is there that Hillary was the first to climb Everest? There isn't even a photo of him at the summit. His excuse? Norgay Tensing didn't know how to operate a camera. If you were going to be the first to climb Everest, surely you'd spend 5 minutes showing someone how to point a camera, adjust the focus, and press the shutter button?

Why should we take it for granted that Amundsen was the first to reach the South Pole? They could easily have faked the photos in a Norwegian glacial valley.

Who in their right mind would believe that Bob Beamon was able to jump an astonishing 29 feet in 1968, a feat that wasn't matched for 23 years??? Clearly this was faked to prepare people for the low-gravity antics they were going to be seeing in Apollo footage very shortly.

Laughably, NASA claim they soft-landed a probe on one of Saturns moons, Titan. Of course, there's no independent evidence of this, and noone has repeated this ridiculous claim, so obviously it is another fake mission.

NASA claim to have launched probes that have LEFT THE SOLAR SYSTEM!!! Where is the independent confirmation? They could say anything they like and no-one would know the difference. More faked missions, that aren't possible now with our far superior technology, and certainly weren't possible then.

In fact, why should we believe anything? Why should I believe that Pluto exists? I've never seen it. It could all be a big con by astronomers to keep the gravy-train research fund money coming in. Strange how they keep on findind new planets every now and then! The solar system just seems to keep on getting biger and bigger!

Those fantastic Hubble images? All Photoshopped to make astronomy seem sexy.

Black smokers? They don't exist, and were faked in a secret Navy base somewhere, again to keep the funding rolling in.

In fact, why should I believe anything I haven't done myself, or seen with my on eyes? I only have other people's word for it, and quite frankly, other people lie.

Now you've gone and done it!!!! :lol:

They are all gonna believe you, and start replying to each of those...... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the_UNKNOWN_DEAD
But there is a huge problem with this story - as of today, some 48 years later, we cannot duplicate this feat.

I really hope that "this" isn't what your evidence consists of...

The claim that this goal was achieved in 1960 - is a pathetic joke!!

Don't you remember?...you posted it was an "obvious fraud".

So when do we get to the "obvious" part??

First of all, you need to understand that I'm disputing and questioning the original Trieste claim. The burden of proof lies with their claim. That is the party which needs to "present credible evidence" for its original claim.

What a ridiculously sloppy attempt to shift the burden of proof.

So what you really "missed" to begin with, was in finding anywhere the Trieste account had "presented credible evidence" for its authenticity.

What would it matter??? Why would you accept credible evidence in this case, when you REFUSE to accept credible evidence regarding the Moon landings??

If you're just going to handwave, then personally, I'm not going to waste my time reading your ignorant rantings.

The fact that it is impossible to duplicate the Trieste's (supposed) feat, even today is "credible evidence" beyond any dispute that the Trieste story is a blatant fraud.

What education do you possess that qualifies you to determine that duplicating Trieste's dive is "impossible"??

You've shown us no particular "skill set" that might be utilized in such an evaluation...far from it, you continue to demonstrate an inability to understand the simplest of concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Classic Turbonium... full of opinion, hand-waving and misdirection... totally lacking in any kind of evidence or substance.

This should make for an interesting read... linked-image

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rambaldi
"Why" it is a conspiracy,

It has to be, because otherwise Turbonium's double standards about Apollo would be exposed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
Not at all!

It shows the technology is still with us,

No, the technology still doesn't exist.

and if you care to read the link to the article it also gives you a good clue why manned submersibles are today irrelevant for such deep ocean study.

There has to be a very good reason for sending men back down to the Challenger Deep, fact is, there just isnt a good enough reason.

Actually, there are very good reasons for sending manned submersibles to the bottom of Challenger Deep, and elsewhere...

A report from Nov. 12, 2003...

Deep-Ocean Science Limited by Capabilities of Existing Submersibles;

Value of Both Manned and Unmanned Vehicles Recognized

WASHINGTON -- Deep-diving manned submersibles, such as Alvin, which gained worldwide fame when researchers used it to reach the wreck of the Titanic, have helped advance deep-ocean science. But many scholars in this field have noted that the number and capabilities of today's underwater vehicles no longer meet current scientific demands. At the same time, the relative value of manned and unmanned vehicles is often disputed. A new report from the National Academies' National Research Council says new submersibles -- both manned and unmanned -- that are more capable than those in the current fleet are needed and would be of great value to the advancement of ocean research.

The National Science Foundation's Division of Ocean Science, which is a major funder of U.S. ocean research, asked the Research Council to study the issue because of NSF's concerns about the current fleet's usefulness.

The launch of Alvin almost 40 years ago was a milestone in the exploration of the ocean. Although it may be best known for reaching the Titanic, the submersible has also gained fame for other significant findings, such as the discovery of deep-sea hydrothermal vent ecosystems. Over the years, manned and unmanned deep-sea vehicles have improved our understanding of the processes that govern plate tectonics and ocean chemistry, and of the origins and evolution of life. But despite significant improvements in the design and operation of manned, remotely operated, and autonomous underwater vehicles, much of the ocean and seafloor remains beyond the reach of U.S. scientists. And, the report notes, human observation is still often the best way to study some aspects of the ocean and seafloor.

Alvin has been modified over the years to allow it to take a pilot and two scientists to depths of 4,500 meters. The report calls for a new and more capable manned vehicle that should provide the scientists onboard with improved visibility and achieve neutral buoyancy at various depths -- which Alvin has difficulty doing -- so that researchers can pause to study life forms that exist between the surface and the seafloor. A detailed engineering study also is needed to assess the costs and technical risks of extending the diving range of an upgraded manned vehicle to 6,500 meters.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews...?RecordID=10854

Oceans cover two thirds of the earth and is home to much of the life on our planet. But humankind's freedom to enjoy and benefit from this vast submerged habitat is sadly limited. Scuba divers barely scratch the surface, reaching down to 164 feet (1/225 of the way to the bottom of the deepest ocean) About half a dozen aging submersible craft can carry people a little more than halfway to the deepest parts of the oceans; only a few robotic systems can go deeper. The piloted bathyscaphe Trieste dived down to the MarianaÍs Trench at 36,000 feet in 1960, and no human has been back since. Today only the new robotic Japanese vehicle Kaiko can attain these depths. The truth of the matter is, it is now almost 2000, and we still do not know if there are fish in the deepest part of the oceans.

In the near future, we similarly envision fleets of Deep Flight craft which will be taking scientists, teachers, politicians, schoolchildren, poets and artists down to the deepest parts of our oceans. How has the Deep Flight program affected people? Firstly, we are educating future generations that the age of exploration is not dead. We've actually been at Explorer's Club meetings where they lament that the age of exploration is over. We hear over and over again that man has climbed every mountain, and named every peak. How could they forget that there are tremendous mountain ranges, valleys and peaks all underwater, many undiscovered, and most un-named. Not to mention so many discoveries, such as entirely new species? Which brings up another important benefit: Deep Flight enables access to two thirds of our planet where we will find many of the resources necessary to sustain humankind in the future, including: food and natural resources, biotechnology products, geographic territories, etc.

Deep Flight is only one of two programs worldwide building manned vehicles for the deep oceans. The other project is run by JAMSTEC, a Japanese government-business initiative which has $500 million in funding, and is trying to build a conventional manned submersible (which will be tied to a mother ship, and thus be very expensive to

operate). There are many original aspects to Deep Flight: from being the first underwater aircraft, to shrinking all the operational technologies needed to fit into a one-man microsubmersible. We will be able to take people deeper, more quickly and more cost effectively: whether it be for science and industry, or just for pure exploration and

adventure.

Unlike the Japanese program, which is very well funded, Deep Flight has always been a grass roots project. It began when world renowned engineer, Graham Hawkes, took on the engineering challenge to build a deep ocean craft to withstand the pressures of full ocean depth. In the beginning, there was a crazy engineer/inventor and a team of volunteers in a garage workshop. Graham sold a vintage car to begin building the prototype Deep Flight I, and the build continued with much of his personal money, plus some funding from sponsors, such as Imax, TV New Zealand, National Geographic Television, and Rolex. We also have many product sponsors, including Autodesk, ANSYS, Inc., Sony, and many others.

http://www.cwhonors.org/search/his_4a_detail.asp?id=3954

We have been developing technologies with which to realize an remotely operated underwater vehicle that makes it possible for us to survey in deep sea, for example, on the seafloor at the world’s deepest ocean depth of 11,000 m. In such deep sea, the underwater vehicle is exposed to extremely high water pressure. In order to survey under high pressure, new materials and equipment need to be reseach and developed. Using onbrand-new technologies, we take on the challenge of research and exploration in the world’s deepest part of the ocean.

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/e/about/research/technology.html

As noted above, there are two distinct programs currently devoted to developing and building manned vehicles for the deep oceans. One of which - the Japanese program - being "very well funded", which eliminates the 'lack of funding' excuse for not duplicating the Trieste's claimed achievement.

This also bears repeating...

"In order to survey under high pressure, new materials and equipment need to be reseach and developed."

It's abundantly clear that we are still unable to build a manned submersible that can duplicate what the Trieste supposedly did, way back in 1960!

There are valid reasons to develop and build manned submersibles capable of such extreme ocean depths. There are 2 programs, one with massive resources, dedicated to achieving that goal.

Your excuses don't hold up.

Anyways, care to offer any evidence for your ridiculous "conspiracy" theory? Such as "Why" it is a conspiracy, why the logs of the research vessels involved should be discounted? Who gained what, exactly from this venture?

It's only your excuses which are "ridiculous", as I've pointed out above. There are "good reasons" for it, there are programs actively pursuing it, and there is adequate funding for it (in Japan's case, certainly)

Why is it a conspiracy?

Because Piccard and Walsh conspired in making a fraudulent claim about the Trieste's feat.

Why should the logs of the research vessels involved be discounted?

Because they relied solely on the account of Piccard and Walsh. There was no independent verification for their account.

Who gained what from the bogus claim?

Piccard and Walsh, who gained fame and fortune. They were recognized as brave, heroic pioneers. Piccard obviously gained financially from it, as did his father...

In 1953 Swiss oceanographer Jacques Piccard (1922- ) helped his father Auguste Piccard (1884-1963) build the Trieste, which they dove to a depth of 10,168 feet off the Mediterranean island of Ponza. In 1956, under contract with the U.S. Navy, the Piccards redesigned the Trieste to withstand the pressure of any known sea depth; they sold the Trieste to the navy two years later. In 1960, accompanied by U.S. Navy Lieutenant Don Walsh, Jacques Piccard took the Trieste to the bottom of one of the deepest parts of the Mariana Trench, the Challenger Deep, where they touched bottom at a depth of 35,800 feet (10,912m), just 400 feet (122m) less than the deepest sounding recorded.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/deep-sea-...d-and-scit-071/

Piccard just had to bribe Walsh into going along with the lie, and nobody else would - or could - ever know the actual truth.

But 48 years has exposed the truth - it was all a fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
I must confess to my share of the blame for this thread. I was using the Trieste expedition as an analogy in the Apollo debate - I really didn't think that anyone would seriously claim that it was an obviously faked mission.

Mind you, maybe Turbs really is onto something...

What proof is there that Hillary was the first to climb Everest? There isn't even a photo of him at the summit. His excuse? Norgay Tensing didn't know how to operate a camera. If you were going to be the first to climb Everest, surely you'd spend 5 minutes showing someone how to point a camera, adjust the focus, and press the shutter button?

Why should we take it for granted that Amundsen was the first to reach the South Pole? They could easily have faked the photos in a Norwegian glacial valley.

Who in their right mind would believe that Bob Beamon was able to jump an astonishing 29 feet in 1968, a feat that wasn't matched for 23 years??? Clearly this was faked to prepare people for the low-gravity antics they were going to be seeing in Apollo footage very shortly.

Laughably, NASA claim they soft-landed a probe on one of Saturns moons, Titan. Of course, there's no independent evidence of this, and noone has repeated this ridiculous claim, so obviously it is another fake mission.

NASA claim to have launched probes that have LEFT THE SOLAR SYSTEM!!! Where is the independent confirmation? They could say anything they like and no-one would know the difference. More faked missions, that aren't possible now with our far superior technology, and certainly weren't possible then.

In fact, why should we believe anything? Why should I believe that Pluto exists? I've never seen it. It could all be a big con by astronomers to keep the gravy-train research fund money coming in. Strange how they keep on findind new planets every now and then! The solar system just seems to keep on getting biger and bigger!

Those fantastic Hubble images? All Photoshopped to make astronomy seem sexy.

Black smokers? They don't exist, and were faked in a secret Navy base somewhere, again to keep the funding rolling in.

In fact, why should I believe anything I haven't done myself, or seen with my on eyes? I only have other people's word for it, and quite frankly, other people lie.

You're making totally invalid comparisons.

The Trieste claim is based on technological abilities. We cannot duplicate the feat because we do not have the technology.

Personal accomplishments like climbing Everest, or high jumping, are entirely different. You're trying to compare people to technology, as if Hillary and Beamon were "Model T's", or something.

And it's not even about whether anybody else actually saw it happen at the time.

It's simply a question of whether or not we are able to duplicate the feat, having vastly superior technology at our disposal.

What 1960's technology has remained equal to - let alone superior to - our current technology? Do I really need to answer that?

Pick any technology-based field - transportation (aviation, automotive, etc), computers, communications, robotics, etc. 1960 looks like stone-age technology compared to what we have today, in every one of these fields. Nothing from 1960 is even close to matching what we have in 2008, let alone be superior to it!!

It's the only relevant comparison.

And it's not even debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
I really hope that "this" isn't what your evidence consists of...

Don't you remember?...you posted it was an "obvious fraud".

So when do we get to the "obvious" part??

What a ridiculously sloppy attempt to shift the burden of proof.

What would it matter??? Why would you accept credible evidence in this case, when you REFUSE to accept credible evidence regarding the Moon landings??

If you're just going to handwave, then personally, I'm not going to waste my time reading your ignorant rantings.

What education do you possess that qualifies you to determine that duplicating Trieste's dive is "impossible"??

You've shown us no particular "skill set" that might be utilized in such an evaluation...far from it, you continue to demonstrate an inability to understand the simplest of concepts.

Ironic, to accuse me of handwaving and ignorant rantings, in a post with nothing but handwaving and personal rantings.

Hardly the first time that's the case, and surely won't be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco

You are clearly locked in your own mind-set. Studying hydrothermal vents is interesting and scientifically valid, however as there are no hydrothermal vents in the Challenger deep then where is the argument. You are also discounting the sonar logs of the expedition, they dont fit your "theory" so lets ignore them! They are all in the logs. You are right, Trieste I was sold to the US Navy for 250,000 dollars, barely covered the development costs. Trieste II was owned by the US Navy as a research tool.

We can always say that it is better to have "manned" submersibles, but an aweful lot of good science is done without (space program comes to mind),

If the japanese wanted to attach a habitat to their deep submersible vehicle then they could. The engineering is not difficult, but the need is not there for one to traverse the Challenger Deep.

All in all, you have provided no evidence at all, you have not backed your claim up with one iota of scientific fact, not one other person to say it never happened. Still begs the question why? Because (yes it was a rhetorical question) you have this idea and want to gain some credence for promulgating it.

You are wasting peoples' time with this absurd notion, and I for one will not return to this topic until you provide some CONVINCING evidence to the contrary... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
What 1960's technology has remained equal to - let alone superior to - our current technology? Do I really need to answer that?

Pick any technology-based field - transportation (aviation, automotive, etc), computers, communications, robotics, etc. 1960 looks like stone-age technology compared to what we have today, in every one of these fields. Nothing from 1960 is even close to matching what we have in 2008, let alone be superior to it!!

It's the only relevant comparison.

1960's technology. OK, let me see.

How about Concorde?

1959: Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee recommended the design studies for 2 supersonic airliners, (one to fly at a speed of Mach 1.2, and the other at Mach 2.0).

1969: First prototype test flight

Strange how there is no such aircraft in existence now that can fly fare-paying passengers across the Atlantic at Mach 2.0 - yet they were able to commission design studies for such a vehicle 50 years ago, which had its maiden test flight ten years later! Surely if they were capable of flying at Mach 2 all those years ago with stone-age technology, we should be capable at flying at Mach 10 now, with our incredible and far superior knowledge and technology? Please explain why technology has taken such a backward step? There isn't even a passenger plane in existence that can fly above the speed of sound, let alone Mach 2!

Mind you, it's not just Concorde. What about the Blackbird SR-71?

It's maiden flight was in 1964. You'd have us believe that the US had stealth technology capable of Mach 3.2 in 1964, when their stealth technology today can't fly faster than sound! Trains still ran on steam back then! Speaking of which, the initial plans for the SR-71 involved a coal-slurry powerplant (I kid you not).

Mind you, it's not just aeronautics. What about piston engined cars?

In 1965, Goldenrod was the fastest ever piston-engined car, capable of travelling at over 400mph - without a supercharger, or turbocharger! The fastest of todays supercars can manage about half that, even WITH a supercharger! Why has technology taken a huge backwards leap in the last 40 years?

And it's not even debatable.

Well, if it's not worth debating! I wish you'd put that at the start of the thread, I wouldn't have wasted all those keyboard presses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the_UNKNOWN_DEAD
The Trieste claim is based on technological abilities. We cannot duplicate the feat because we do not have the technology.

I'll ask again...is this to be your argument/evidence??

Kindly answer the question...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
Studying hydrothermal vents is interesting and scientifically valid, however as there are no hydrothermal vents in the Challenger deep then where is the argument.

Excuse me? You actually believe there is only valid reason - studying hydrothermal vents? That's complete nonsense.

First of all, the Challenger Deep is hardly the only region on Earth worth exploring and studying! There are valid reasons to conduct both unmanned and manned deep sea exploration, such as...

- to discover regions of untapped resources (ie: petroleum);

- to advance our understanding and knowledge of geological phenomena (ie: earthquakes) for accurately predicting when they will occur in the future;

- to discover entirely new species of sea life.

About two thirds of the Earth's surface lies beneath the oceans.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

You are also discounting the sonar logs of the expedition, they dont fit your "theory" so lets ignore them! They are all in the logs.

Cite your source(s) for the sonar logs.

You are right, Trieste I was sold to the US Navy for 250,000 dollars, barely covered the development costs. Trieste II was owned by the US Navy as a research tool.

Which is $250,000 more than they would have had otherwise. Not to mention the money they made from the US Navy contract.

We can always say that it is better to have "manned" submersibles, but an aweful lot of good science is done without (space program comes to mind),

Not "better". Unmanned and manned submersibles each have their advantages (and drawbacks) for conducting deep sea exploration. It's not a case of only one method or the other being "better" for everything.

All in all, you have provided no evidence at all, you have not backed your claim up with one iota of scientific fact, not one other person to say it never happened. Still begs the question why? Because (yes it was a rhetorical question) you have this idea and want to gain some credence for promulgating it.

You are wasting peoples' time with this absurd notion, and I for one will not return to this topic until you provide some CONVINCING evidence to the contrary... <_<

No, it's an entirely valid argument. We have vastly superior technology that we did in 1960. We still can't do it now, which means we couldn't do it then.

It's as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
1960's technology. OK, let me see.

How about Concorde?

1959: Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee recommended the design studies for 2 supersonic airliners, (one to fly at a speed of Mach 1.2, and the other at Mach 2.0).

1969: First prototype test flight

Strange how there is no such aircraft in existence now that can fly fare-paying passengers across the Atlantic at Mach 2.0 - yet they were able to commission design studies for such a vehicle 50 years ago, which had its maiden test flight ten years later! Surely if they were capable of flying at Mach 2 all those years ago with stone-age technology, we should be capable at flying at Mach 10 now, with our incredible and far superior knowledge and technology? Please explain why technology has taken such a backward step? There isn't even a passenger plane in existence that can fly above the speed of sound, let alone Mach 2!

It isn't because we couldn't now develop faster passenger planes than the Concorde. The problem is that it makes no sense, business-wise, because the Concorde was a money losing disaster.

Mind you, it's not just Concorde. What about the Blackbird SR-71?

It's maiden flight was in 1964. You'd have us believe that the US had stealth technology capable of Mach 3.2 in 1964, when their stealth technology today can't fly faster than sound! Trains still ran on steam back then! Speaking of which, the initial plans for the SR-71 involved a coal-slurry powerplant (I kid you not).

Irrelevant comparison. The Blackbird was a black budget military project, and we only found out about it years later. Same with the U-2, and the Stealth. We don't know about the most advanced, cutting-edge military projects, until years - or decades - after they've already been developed and put into use.

Mind you, it's not just aeronautics. What about piston engined cars?

In 1965, Goldenrod was the fastest ever piston-engined car, capable of travelling at over 400mph - without a supercharger, or turbocharger! The fastest of todays supercars can manage about half that, even WITH a supercharger! Why has technology taken a huge backwards leap in the last 40 years?

Invalid comparison. Are we still trying to set new speed records with propeller aircraft? Are we still trying to develop the fastest ever bi-plane, or tri-plane?

There are various land - and air - speed records for specific classes of vehicles/aircraft.

The fastest land and air speeds have been set by vehicles/aircraft using advanced technology.

We don't need to base new vehicles, aircraft, or submersibles (either manned or unmanned) exclusively (if even at all) on previous technology.

Bathyspheres are not the most advanced submersibles we have today. Just like we didn't need to keep trying to develop faster and faster prop-planes, after jet-engine aircraft came along.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101
Just like we didn't need to keep trying to develop faster and faster prop-planes, after jet-engine aircraft came along.

Then why are they continuing to keep records for non jet-powered aircraft?

The world speed record for piston-driven aircraft was set in 1989:

From Rare Bear

On Monday, August 21, 1989 the Rare Bear faced the challenge, sprinting the four legs of the course at an average speed of 528.33 mph - shattering the previous record by almost 30 mph! In September 1989 the Rare Bear (now hailed as "The fastest propeller driven aircraft in the world"),

And from Wikipedia - Rare Bear

Rare Bear has also set many performance records for piston-driven aircraft, including the 3Km World Speed Record (528.33 mph (850.26 km/h) set in 1989), and a new time-to-climb record (3,000 meters in 91.9 seconds set in 1972, breaking a 1946 record set in a stock Bearcat).

By your "logic", they should've thrown out any record set after jet aircraft came into service...

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
name='turbonium' date='Jan 31 2008, 06:32 AM' post='2127762']

It isn't because we couldn't now develop faster passenger planes than the Concorde. The problem is that it makes no sense, business-wise, because the Concorde was a money losing disaster.

There you have it...it makes NO SENSE to revisit Challenger Deep, it's been done already. Where is the need to copy the exercise. The record was achieved, and it is impossible to break that record (unless you have other information).

You are required to present some proof of your claims. You have not done so. YOU made the proposition, now YOU defend it!!!

Bathyspheres are not the most advanced submersibles we have today. Just like we didn't need to keep trying to develop faster and faster prop-planes, after jet-engine aircraft came along.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
It isn't because we couldn't now develop faster passenger planes than the Concorde. The problem is that it makes no sense, business-wise, because the Concorde was a money losing disaster.

So why don't you apply that logic to Trieste?

"It isn't because we couldn't develop better manned submersibles than Trieste which are capable of descending Challenger Deep. The problem is that it makes no sense, scientifically, because we have remote submersibles that can do the job more cheaply and more safely."

There you go.

Irrelevant comparison. The Blackbird was a black budget military project, and we only found out about it years later. Same with the U-2, and the Stealth. We don't know about the most advanced, cutting-edge military projects, until years - or decades - after they've already been developed and put into use.

Being a secret project has absolutely no relevance to the fact that this, like Concorde, was 1960's technology - an era which, according to you, was like the Stone Age compared to modern day technology. Clearly it wasn't like the stone age.

We don't need to base new vehicles, aircraft, or submersibles (either manned or unmanned) exclusively (if even at all) on previous technology.

Bathyspheres are not the most advanced submersibles we have today. Just like we didn't need to keep trying to develop faster and faster prop-planes, after jet-engine aircraft came along.

What the other guy said... quod erat demonstrandum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

Could this be the smoking gun?

linked-image

mmmh some writing.. :huh:

linked-image

If we blow the image up 800% sharpen/ refocus..

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
Could this be the smoking gun?

Slight problem, how do you write on a sphere so that the writing looks perfectly straight when viewed from a random angle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the_UNKNOWN_DEAD
it's an entirely valid argument.

No, Turb...you can repeat that as much as you like, and it won't get any "righter".

It's time to "fish or cut bait". It you don't have evidence to present, then people here are going to think that you are not discussing this subject "in good faith".

We have vastly superior technology that we did in 1960. We still can't do it now, which means we couldn't do it then.

It's as simple as that.

Simple "minded", maybe. So this is really going to be your "argument"? You're just going to keep repeating the same thing over and over??

Present your evidence or admit you have none. This "as simple as that" crap simply won't "cut it" with rational people. From past experience, you should know that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

Slight problem, how do you write on a sphere so that the writing looks perfectly straight when viewed from a random angle?

Don't make me use the warp tool... please.. ;)

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.