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 -

The Trieste story is pure nonsense


turbonium

Recommended Posts

Can we mass produce steam powered automobiles today? The answer is no so apparently we never have. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

By the way, using this logic the Titanic was never found and it's all a fake.

There is no technology to do this!

Yeah, whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turbs, you realise that to make a claim, you have to supply evidence, right?

1. You claim the logs are falsified. What evidence do you have?

If I see an airplane and have no camera with me, nor a net to capture it, did it really exist? If I go fishing and nothing bites at my bait, does that mean there are no fish in the world? The Trieste was on an INFO gathering trip - not a specimen gathering trip.

Picard was an engineer - NOT a marine biologist. Similarly, I am also not a marine biologist. To ME, the following images look like shrimp - and I would report them as such: http://images.google.com/images?q=Hirondellea%20gigas

I am firmly in the camp of, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, let's call it a duck." Those can easily be described as "shrimp".

Also, you are missing a very glaring point here. Just because someone has either NOT broken a record, or has NOT tried to, does NOT mean that the record was never set in the first place. It's kind of neat - because the English language has this word, "TRY".

Also, consider, if you will, the differences in society between 1960 and today. In the 60's, many, MANY safety regulations were put into place that were not there before. It would be ILLEGAL to send contractors and consultants down in the Trieste I or II today... purely for being unsafe.

The burden of proof is on you - and you continually use, "I've told you before" as evidence... but what you told us before had no evidence associated with the claim. Your stance is so poor that it isn't even laughable... it is face-palm-able.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you're not expecting Turbs to reply to you, Malruhn... he abandoned this thread two years ago when he could no longer support his ridiculous claim or answer any of the questions asked of him.

Its kind of a habit of his...

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you're not expecting Turbs to reply to you, Malruhn... he abandoned this thread two years ago when he could no longer support his ridiculous claim or answer any of the questions asked of him.

Its kind of a habit of his...

Cz

Holy Necro-posts, Batman!! I didn't even look at the dates... and then I read all fifteen danged pages!

I feel like such a... turbonium. *snerk*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

In your attempt to make Turbo look foolish, you come off exactly the same as a sceptic speaking about Aliens. Maybe Turbo, like me, is tired of being lied to by every alphabet agency in Washington. Your last sentence covers it pretty good. KennyB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I not only agree with Turbonium, I had been reading on the topic recently and did some calculations that convinced me that Piccard and Walsh would have died. Walsh was picked at the last minute, and not really "in on it." The day before, they couldn't find a good spot to drop without hitting something. They probably landed on some sort of shelf. At the speed they claimed to the depth they claimed, it would have been fast enough to get the bends. The vehicle was totally dismantled and nothing remains. I believe Piccard was jealous of the rest of his family for breaking records. The French kid's magazine Tintin treated him as a weird scientist. Since no one seemed interested and kidded me, I forgot about it. But now I'm glad to see someone else had the same thoughts. I'm a 65 yr old woman, a retired NYS prison teacher.

Since no one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your attempt to make Turbo look foolish, you come off exactly the same as a sceptic speaking about Aliens. Maybe Turbo, like me, is tired of being lied to by every alphabet agency in Washington. Your last sentence covers it pretty good. KennyB

Turbo does a good enough job of making himself look foolish. I'm showing why his reasoning isn't logically sound. No-one likes being lied to by government agencies, that doesn't mean the default position is that every conspiracy under the sun is automatically true. You need to look at the evidence. In the case of Trieste, there's no evidence that it was faked. There is evidence that they made it. On balance, IMO the only sensible position from a logical and evidential point of view is that they probably did make it to the bottom of Challenger Deep. Distrust of the CIA, FBI and any other US government agency shouldn't prejudice rational thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I not only agree with Turbonium, I had been reading on the topic recently and did some calculations that convinced me that Piccard and Walsh would have died.

I don't know what your calculations are as you haven't presented them, but the observation gondola is designed so that the pressure remains pretty much constant so it's safe for human habitation. It's not the same as doing a free dive, so no danger of getting the bends.

Walsh was picked at the last minute, and not really "in on it."

Not sure what you mean by this.

The day before, they couldn't find a good spot to drop without hitting something. They probably landed on some sort of shelf. At the speed they claimed to the depth they claimed, it would have been fast enough to get the bends.

See above.

The vehicle was totally dismantled and nothing remains.

You can go and see it at the US Navy museum. It has been improved and redesigned over the years, how much of the original is left is open to debate. That said, when she broke CHallenger Deep, she wasn't in her original configuration either.

trieste1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...a retired NYS prison teacher.

Your reasoning and former occupation makes me fear for what was taught to your students. I sincerely hope you taught strictly to a curriculum and did not inject any personal opinions or beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I believe that you believe all that you wrote in this 'turbonium'. While studying in college I had a professor that wanted to prove Newton's laws of gravity wrong. Now he was of coarse a well educated and intelligent man, I listened to him summarize to our class in a lecture hall of his theory. Being a somewhat intelligent man myself I listened and took note of how I believed he made sense. Years later while I was working on some ballistic co-efficiencies on a particular projectile I thought of my old professor and his theory. Later I was having dinner with a friend whom happens to be a physicist by profession. We discussed my old professors theory and my friend laid out an explanation of gravity that a 2 year old could understand, I then realized all these years I was giving thought to a valid theory ,when my old professor was just really not playing with a full deck (said nicely). Please do not make the same mistake in your opinions and observations. Most of these conspirator theory's arise from the ashes of under-educated observation and knowledge ( as my self with my old professor) or someone just suturing the pot for who knows what reason. Remember that science and our knowledge are not just growing by the X*12 power in the past 100 years, but also re-inventing its self all the time. If you believe that something that is documented , verified, and proven through evidence is a fake. Please do your homework and read credible text on the subject. On the decent the Trieste had problems(cannot remember at what depth now) and they made the decision to continue on mission. That was almost a fatal mistake for those two brave souls. The damage to the bathysphere upon later inspection found damage to most of the seals and locking rings. This is one main reason it has never been done again to damn dangerous for a repeat, the trieste was beyond repair from the official Naval records which you can find online at the US Naval Ship Registry. Man does some wonderful amazing stupid acts in the name of knowledge, do you know why, because we can do those things and many more. I hope no one takes this as an insult, I mean none. This is my opinion on the above events from my knowledge and observations. Thank you all for having me in your discussion !!!!

Edited by Jim50BMG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I not only agree with Turbonium, I had been reading on the topic recently and did some calculations that convinced me that Piccard and Walsh would have died.

Where in hades did this ridiculous notion that Trieste did not do what it did arise?

Please, show us your mortality calculations...

Walsh was picked at the last minute, and not really "in on it."

It was a Navy research project (Nekton). Lt. Walsh was an oceanographer, submariner, and part of the project. How would he not be "in on it"? How do you just pick someone to go on such a mission without that person being "in on it"?

The day before, they couldn't find a good spot to drop without hitting something. They probably landed on some sort of shelf.

Yea...the floor of the ocean.

At the speed they claimed to the depth they claimed, it would have been fast enough to get the bends.

How do you get the bends in a constant presure vessel?

The vehicle was totally dismantled and nothing remains.

It is currently on display at the U.S. Navy Museum in Washington, DC.

I believe Piccard was jealous of the rest of his family for breaking records. The French kid's magazine Tintin treated him as a weird scientist. Since no one seemed interested and kidded me, I forgot about it. But now I'm glad to see someone else had the same thoughts. I'm a 65 yr old woman, a retired NYS prison teacher.

Other people do have the same thoughts.

They may be completely fallacious, and based on nothing but speculative fantasy, but you're definitely in the right place to find someone else who thinks that way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about 35,000 feet in the 60's... But there sure does seem to be problems working at 5,000 or so in 2010 if the oil leak in the Gulf is any indication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about 35,000 feet in the 60's... But there sure does seem to be problems working at 5,000 or so in 2010 if the oil leak in the Gulf is any indication.

No one worked at 35,000 feet in the 1960s. No one does today.

That was an exploratory sortie of short duration...a look see, a dangerous one at that.

Working at depth is a bit different. A mile deep is a difficult engineering problem. Being able to survive at that depth and have the ability to articulate and maneuver and handle loads and such is quite a challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turbs, you realise that to make a claim, you have to supply evidence, right?

1. You claim the logs are falsified. What evidence do you have?

If I see an airplane and have no camera with me, nor a net to capture it, did it really exist? If I go fishing and nothing bites at my bait, does that mean there are no fish in the world? The Trieste was on an INFO gathering trip - not a specimen gathering trip.

Picard was an engineer - NOT a marine biologist. Similarly, I am also not a marine biologist. To ME, the following images look like shrimp - and I would report them as such: http://images.google.com/images?q=Hirondellea%20gigas

I am firmly in the camp of, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, let's call it a duck." Those can easily be described as "shrimp".

Also, you are missing a very glaring point here. Just because someone has either NOT broken a record, or has NOT tried to, does NOT mean that the record was never set in the first place. It's kind of neat - because the English language has this word, "TRY".

Also, consider, if you will, the differences in society between 1960 and today. In the 60's, many, MANY safety regulations were put into place that were not there before. It would be ILLEGAL to send contractors and consultants down in the Trieste I or II today... purely for being unsafe.

The burden of proof is on you - and you continually use, "I've told you before" as evidence... but what you told us before had no evidence associated with the claim. Your stance is so poor that it isn't even laughable... it is face-palm-able.

It's easy to fake the logs, so it's flimsy evidence. Anything can be 'documented', but it has to be corroborated by independent sources. The Trieste logs weren't.

The burden of proof is on those who support the Trieste story, as this is the original claim. They have utterly failed to meet that burden. Their 'evidence' is contradicted by Japan's subsequent findings, as I noted in detail earlier on this thread.

The lack of any other manned craft which could even come close to the feat is a red flag, but it's the flimsy evidence, and the outright conflicting evidence, which truly 'sinks' the Trieste claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all this time, Turbs, I can't believe that you don't understand the requirements of "Burden of Proof" so I must conclude that you are willfully ignoring them. Doing so after Burden of Proof has been explained to you SO many times just shows your lack of integrity.

The FACT is that the Trieste dive happened and is recognized and acknowledged the world over by experts as having happened as history recorded it.

You have the burden to prove that it was faked. Your theories were shot through with so many holes that you had to abandon this thread - just as you've done other places with other topics when you've been put in a corner and can no longer support your ridiculous claims - for 2 years.

Yours is the extraordinary claim that needs to be proven. But since you know you can't prove it, and we know you can't prove it, you'll just revert to your usual dance, evade, avoid and then abandon tactics.

So... how long until you abandon this topic again, Turbs...?

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The burden of proof is on those who support the Trieste story, as this is the original claim.

To elaborate on CZs post, this would be true if you were posting this in the 1960s, HOWEVER, the claim was accepted and is considered fact. As such there is no further burden of proof on the Trieste side as the burden of proof is ALWAYS with those wishing to over turn the status quo. It is up to you to provide evidence that the Trieste was faked, not up to any one else to prove AGAIN that it wasn't.

They have utterly failed to meet that burden.

There seem to be two camps on this.

In the one camp we have those that think that the burden of proof was met. This includes all the authorities, engineers, submariners, and pretty much anyone with relevent training/knowledge/experience of the subject.

In the other camp we have those that agree with your statement, that includes you, Sfingi, maybe KennyB and rashore and... well that's about it really.

On a balance of probability, and given the (as usaul) total lack of logic and credible evidence you have provided, I know which side looks most likely to be right to me.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, what would be the point in returning?

It was dangerous then, its dangerous now.

They took a risk, lived, and showed life can live down that deep. I dont see the point in risking more lives when unmanned subs can do the same job, if not better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, what would be the point in returning?

It was dangerous then, its dangerous now.

They took a risk, lived, and showed life can live down that deep. I dont see the point in risking more lives when unmanned subs can do the same job, if not better.

Oh there are always benefits. Looking at volcanic vents we discovered that there was life around them that we never thought possible. Sure, that was obtained by robotic devices, but there is also something about the person being there. If we can put a person there, it opens the possibilities that we can 'conquer' that environment. The value of such knowledge is debatable, and that is where the risk analysis comes in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To elaborate on CZs post, this would be true if you were posting this in the 1960s, HOWEVER, the claim was accepted and is considered fact. As such there is no further burden of proof on the Trieste side as the burden of proof is ALWAYS with those wishing to over turn the status quo. It is up to you to provide evidence that the Trieste was faked, not up to any one else to prove AGAIN that it wasn't.

There seem to be two camps on this.

In the one camp we have those that think that the burden of proof was met. This includes all the authorities, engineers, submariners, and pretty much anyone with relevent training/knowledge/experience of the subject.

In the other camp we have those that agree with your statement, that includes you, Sfingi, maybe KennyB and rashore and... well that's about it really.

On a balance of probability, and given the (as usaul) total lack of logic and credible evidence you have provided, I know which side looks most likely to be right to me.

If a claim is accepted and considered fact, then it must have met the burden of proof, correct? Well, until recently, we had no way to corroborate the Trieste claim. We now know that Japan's unmanned subs DID NOT corroborate the Trieste claim!

The bottom of Challenger Deep is NOT bright and clear, as claimed by the Trieste crew. It is actually dark and murky.

The Trieste story is flawed on its most basic claim. No photos. The crew said they saw some type of flatfish, which the Japan subs DID NOT SEE. Some scientists have suggested the Trieste crew might have found sea cucumbers and mistook them for flatfish!!

http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/earth/deepest-point-on-earth/

You still want to argue that the Trieste story is supported by valid evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a claim is accepted and considered fact, then it must have met the burden of proof, correct? Well, until recently, we had no way to corroborate the Trieste claim. We now know that Japan's unmanned subs DID NOT corroborate the Trieste claim!

The bottom of Challenger Deep is NOT bright and clear, as claimed by the Trieste crew. It is actually dark and murky.

So its your contention that the sea floor should not and could not have changed at all in the intervening 35 years between Trieste (1960) and Kaikō (1995)....?

The Trieste story is flawed on its most basic claim. No photos. The crew said they saw some type of flatfish, which the Japan subs DID NOT SEE.

I live near the Fraser River.

People say that salmon run in the Fraser River.

I have been to and in the Fraser River and have never seen a salmon.

If we apply "Turbo-Logic"™ to those statements, we come to the conclusion that everyone who has said they have seen salmon in the Fraser River are lying.

Some scientists have suggested the Trieste crew might have found sea cucumbers and mistook them for flatfish!!

Perhaps you can explain how misidentifying a sea cucumber for a flatfish is evidence that the Trieste dive never took place...?

It has something to do with "Turbo-Logic"™, doesn't it... :huh:

You'll notice that the article you cherry-picked linked makes no claim whatsoever that the Trieste dive was faked.

You still want to argue that the Trieste story is supported by valid evidence?

There is no argument, Turbs. Once again you have absolutely, completely failed to prove anything except your own ignorance and delusional mindset.

Congrats on that, but it was hardly necessary since everyone already knows that about you.

Now go ahead and abandon this thread yet again... its about that time, isn't it?

:rolleyes:

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So its your contention that the sea floor should not and could not have changed at all in the intervening 35 years between Trieste (1960) and Kaikō (1995)....?

:rolleyes:

Well, I suppose almost anything is possible. Maybe the ocean floor changed, from bright and clear, to dark and murky, in the exact same period of time between the Trieste and the Japanese missions.. :tu:

Are you actually going to support that claim with any evidence? Or is this just another inane ranting you've barfed out in desperation?

I live near the Fraser River.

People say that salmon run in the Fraser River.

I have been to and in the Fraser River and have never seen a salmon.

If we apply "Turbo-Logic"™ to those statements, we come to the conclusion that everyone who has said they have seen salmon in the Fraser River are lying.

You never seem to grasp my points, so I'm hardly surprised to see you at it again.

I'll try once more to help you understand..

The Trieste crew claimed to have seen some type of flatfish on the ocean floor. The recent Japanese missions did not corroborate that claim.

Now, it's still possible the Trieste's crew did see flatfish. But the claim cannot be considered valid evidence.

Got it?

Perhaps you can explain how misidentifying a sea cucumber for a flatfish is evidence that the Trieste dive never took place...?

It has something to do with "Turbo-Logic"™, doesn't it... :huh:

I only brought it up to show you that the Trieste story has indeed been disputed by experts on certain points, and is not considered the gospel truth and total fact, as you argue.

You'll notice that the article you cherry-picked linked makes no claim whatsoever that the Trieste dive was faked.

Really? Wow, I never noticed that! :cry:

There is no argument, Turbs. Once again you have absolutely, completely failed to prove anything except your own ignorance and delusional mindset.

Congrats on that, but it was hardly necessary since everyone already knows that about you.

Now go ahead and abandon this thread yet again... its about that time, isn't it?

As usual, you conclude by spewing out infantile ad hominems, hoping that nobody will notice you haven't presented the slightest bit of evidence to support your argument.

So, do you have any actual evidence to present, or is this about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ, you guys have been debating this for 2 years? Wow.

Not exactly...

Turbo brought it up, spewed out some crap ideas he had, got backed into a corner when he could not produce any kind of evidence whatsoever to back up his assertion, then he abandoned the thread two years ago. It's just something he does when he can no longer support his skewed ideas.

Cz

Link to comment
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.