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

skookum

The Chinese have just broken 7500 metres. My link

Then apart from James Cameroon there are 3 more in the making to go to the bottom Triton, Virgin Challenger and Doer. My link

Triton looks particularly scary with that large glass bubble.

I personally don't think they made submersibles that go only go shallower because it was impossible to go deeper, it was purely cost vs requirements.

Alvin (famous your the Titanic mission) was owned by the US Navy. When Robert Ballard found the Titanic it was actually a smoke screen for what he had really been hired to do. That was search and locate lost nuclear submarines and survey them. He was desperate to look for the Titanic and was able to use Alvin in exchange for looking for Navies lost subs.

The Trieste was never very practical for the Navy as it was not manoeuvrable to do the work they required, hence why Alvin was born. At the time of design I doubt they really needed to go any deeper. Alvin could go deep enough to find the lost A-bomb and find all the known targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
postbaguk

Cameron accepts the Trieste story by someone's word, alone. That's why he would consider Walsh as credible. But he doesn't know if it's true or not. And even if he thinks it was hoaxed, he's probably not going to tell us, anyway.

The Trieste claim has no valid evidence - no photos, etc. It basically relies on the word of Trieste's 2-man crew.

And the Trieste crew's account severely conflicts with more recent findings of Japanese missions.

Cameron's account is yet to unfold. It should be quite interesting...

From your opening post on this thread.

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.

Well, your "credible evidence" has just been blown out of the water by Cameron's recent dive. Or maybe you doubt him? You only have his word for it. Sure, there's the video allegedly taken at the bottom, but that could have been taken anywhere! How do we know it was the bottom of Challenger Deep? Cameron is a master film-maker, he could easily have faked it, just like he faked the film of the Titanic sinking. Why didn't he bring back samples? Oh yeah, the hydraulic fluid leaked, just as he was about to take a sample! Hilarious!

Sorry, I clicked into Turbo-logic mode for a few seconds...

Seriously. If you believe Cameron made it to the bottom, what do you base that belief on?

Even more seriously. The only reason you started this thread is because you didn't like people using Trieste against you in Apollo discussions. It was easier for you to pour scorn on Trieste, rather than admit that it was possible to achieve things 40-50 years ago that may or may not be repeated in the intervening years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Cameron accepts the Trieste story by someone's word, alone. That's why he would consider Walsh as credible.

Apparently, history has proven you wrong once again.

Many test programs and scientific projects involving ten dives, were conducted by TRIESTE during the next few years. Most significant of these was "PROJECT NEKTON" in which TRIESTE conducted a series of seven dives including three deep dives, climaxing on January 23, 1960 in a 35,800 foot descent into the "Challenger Deep".

History of Trieste

My link

My link

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Cameron accepts the Trieste story by someone's word, alone.

Yes!

And now for an original idea:

They should've had an independent third party observer stowed aboard Trieste!

Further, they never test dove Trieste to almost 30,000 feet.

It couldn't have been done!

:-*

The Trieste claim has no valid evidence - no photos, etc. It basically relies on the word of Trieste's 2-man crew.

If we had photos--that would be valid how?

20,000+ were taken during the the three year period when we laned on the Moon.

But we all know they're not vlid, and they're impossible...they can't be real.

But obviously, you somehow feel that photos would be "valid evidence" of something you sy is impossible...?

:cry:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

How about we know it's faked because they wouldn't have been able to flex their knees that deep? After all, we know if you get the bends it can be fatal at that depth......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

How about we know it's faked because they wouldn't have been able to flex their knees that deep? After all, we know if you get the bends it can be fatal at that depth......

:tu:

Yes, and then that deep-ocean radiation as well. :clap:

And of course, you never take a vessel specially designed to dive to 35,000 feet, stick two folks in it, and dive without test diving it unmanned to 35,000 feet first!

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
Fixed double post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
protostar

Sure, there's the video allegedly taken at the bottom, but that could have been taken anywhere! How do we know it was the bottom of Challenger Deep? Cameron is a master film-maker, he could easily have faked it, just like he faked the film of the Titanic sinking.

It's obvious that he filmed his dive in an unfeasably large tank of superfluid helium seawater ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Folks, I think the point has been more than adequately made now. Let's keep the Apollo hoax arguments to the Apollo hoax thread shall we.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don F

My uncle was aboard the Navy ship that day when he contributed in all fazes with that dive also observed the footage Latitude11.19-78  Longitude 142-12.0E Jan 23 1960 6300 fathoms. Anyone here was there at that moment or through out the day?

Edited by Don F
  • Like 1

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.