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
NO, its not a fact that NO-ONE CAN repeat the feat

The plans for Trieste are still available, the FACT is that no-one would want to use the same plans because the dive was nealy a tragedy.

Safety Regulations are MUCH stricter today than in 1960. NO-ONE would be ALLOWED to buld another Trieste, let alone operate it at depth, which means that new plans, new materials, new methods have to be worked out.

And, NO-ONE is trying to repeat the record breaking Trieste, if you read the links properly you would realise that <_< The materials are available, the technology is available, the will to repeat it is NOT!!!!

Now, answer some questions that have been posted here.

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??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
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. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
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.

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!

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!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101
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!

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
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!

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

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

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
I mean, it's not as if we don't have the tech, or that the task is/was impossible. :tu:

linked-image

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. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
I mean, it's not as if we don't have the tech, or that the task is/was impossible. :tu:

linked-image

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
Another defective analogy.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
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.

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!

Furthermore, you say that because the feat hasn't yet been repeated, it was never done in the first place.

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.

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?

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!!

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
name='turbonium' date='Feb 9 2008, 01:59 PM' post='2142658']

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

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

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.

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

"Mr. Hawkes plans to take the next generation sub, Deep Flight II, to the deepest point on the planet—The Mariana Trench, which lies at 37,000 feet beneath the ocean's surface."
"

Furthermore, the Japanese project makes the lack-of-funding argument irrelevant. They have a massive budget, in the $100's of millions.

$50Million

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

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

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.

Back up this claim, provide evidence

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!!

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!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
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!!

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?

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!

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

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

You started it with your Alice in Wonderland logic!

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.

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
The technologies involved in Deep Flight Challenger are completely different to that used by Trieste.

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?

"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.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
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".

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.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
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. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24
"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"!"

:lol:

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
name='turbonium' date='Feb 12 2008, 09:19 AM' post='2147193']

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 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 :angry:

...of using the bathyscaph to dive to the bottom of Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench in 1960 as a part of Project NEKTON. Trieste's historic dive to the bottom of Challenger Deep in 1960 clearly demonstrated that man could penetrate the oceans to even their deepest depths. But the bathyscaph was large and difficult to operate and maintain in the open sea many miles from its home base.

Global coverage required the capability to carry the diving craft aboard a surface support ship that could transit at high speeds to the dive site and between dives bring the craft back aboard for maintenance and repairs. This dream of a tiny portable submersible was, in fact, already beginning to take shape even before Trieste's 1960 diving campaign in the mind of a young French officer, Jacques Cousteau, who had witnessed the first test dive of the bathyscaph FNRS-2 off Dakar in 1948. Cousteau' s Souscoup was the first modem deep submersible to be built. However, its diving capability was limited to 300 m, far too shallow for the oceanographic community.

Just as Cousteau's experience with the French bathyscaph lead to the creation of the Souscoup, the Americans diving on the Trieste began to think about a similar modem submersible small enough to be carried aboard a mother ship.

No sooner had Trieste completed its deep dive in 1960, than the San Diego group including Andy Rechnitzer, Don Walsh, and Larry Schumaker began to dream of its replacement. Listening to these discussions was Harold "Bud" Froehlich, a General Mills engineer who had built Trieste' s mechanical arm. Soon he was circulating the designs of a small prototype submersible he called the Seapup to anyone who was interested.

This is very curious. It contradicts the Trieste claim.

It does EXACTLY the opposite...fool

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.

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

Both expeditions are reporting EXACTLY the same observations

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

Two Identical accounts!!! A pity your stupid conspiracy theory matches your inability to research, and provide ALL the facts for discussion :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
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...

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.

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.

Can you please specifiy why these two statements are contradictory?

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

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.

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

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.

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.