Some one seen the program on Discovery!??

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

[Orinoco]

Titanic is subject to its own conspiracy theories, and not anyone can go and visit - after all, the salvage rights  to the site were awarded to RMS Titanic Inc. (Quite why an American court gets to issue this right for a British ship is beyond me).

Also, not just anyone can afford submersibles that can go down in excess of 13,000 feet of water.

[Stuart2007]

Yes, but most of the people who believe the titanic conspiracies are total nutters.

US courts get jursidiction because it is closer to their shores than ours and also it was an american owned ship after all. It may have flown a red ensign, but it was owned by america.

what the legal system is for awarding salvage rights I do not know- maybe some others here can answer.

but you have also made my point for me... not everyone can afford to hire submersibles- whether 13000 or 210 ft is irrelevant- you still can not dive down below 200ft and certainly not rob graves (deep diving is severely restricted in time to avoid oxygen toxicity)

[Orinoco]

US courts get jursidiction because it is closer to their shores than ours and also it was an american owned ship after all. It may have flown a red ensign, but it was owned by america.

Didn't realise that, thanks. Also, didn't she fly a Blue Ensign? I thought she was one of the few vessels allowed the exemption? (I could be wrong!)

[Stuart2007]

As I understand, capt ej could fly the blue ensign as he was an naval auxiliary reserve, but in practice it did fly the red ensign. I may be wrong.

[Orinoco]

As I understand, capt ej could fly the blue ensign as he was an naval auxiliary reserve, but in practice it did fly the red ensign. I may be wrong.

Hm, interesting. Can anyone answer this?

[Stuart2007]

It has been answered before. I'll have a look for it.

[Orinoco]

It has been answered before. I'll have a look for it.

Thanks! 

[LucAtC]

Hello Stu,
There are references that the Blue Ensign was flown by Titanic.
It was discussed in
 
http://www.shipsim.com/ShipSimForum/index.php/topic,206.50.html
 
http://www.nava.org/Flag%20Information/articles/Titantic/titanic.htm
indicates it, as also did
 
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic or of course
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic
Other references can be found?
Regards,
Luc

[simplayer]

At last,
i was starting to feel quit lonely here...

Stuart made a good point here, professional divers would not be to keen on diving on an illegal site.
Conspiracy, all major accidents have a way of being mystical, why, because sometimes there are matters of national interest or security involved, you dont have to blow these things up, its not that they would ship a nuclear reactor with a civillian vessel, it could well be a few new millitary vehicals they transported.
I'm only giving an example here, dont take my word for it, i mean that in some cases there are laws being preordred in case something happens, and sometimes accidents do happen to all of us, no matter what precautions you make...

[Al Bundy]

Come off it! your average diver isn't going to get their without professional equipment. If it were a few miles from coast in shallow water then, yes, every diver will be going for a look.

But the average scuba diver will go 130 ft (40+ metres) or maybe 190ft (60metres) with specialised equipment including a different mix of gas in the aqualung.

The point being to descend to that depth and start looking around in a ship wreck is NOT the domain of an amateur diver. It is at least 75 metres depth and this can not be dived without the use of submersibles - maybe even a basic diving bell, but not just a wet/drysuit.

You missed the point Stuart. The point was that the wreck is a grave site and countries want to protect it as such no matter if it takes professional to dive on it or not.

Now I will not pretend to know much about diving as I really don't. Estonia is lying on 74-85 meters of water . Is that measured to the buttom of the sea or to the top of the ship?  If it is the later then she, with her 24.20 meters wide, would make the top side about 60 -70 meters below water, a distance you say can be done with special apparatus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia

According to same article Swedish navy has chased of divers twice, and in year 2000 BBC brought this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/891480.stm
So maybe it takes professionals to dive but apparently professionals wants to do just that.

Now that you mention grave robbery:
If I lost families in the wreck I would not be comfortable knowing that people would be allowed to swim around them and take their belongings.

BTW: World record of scuba diving is 214 meters though http://www.scubarecords.com/ (almost third the distance of Estonia)
and already in 1935 they were able to dive to Lusitania 100 meters down. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichaelCalamera.shtml

I would question your logic in one respect... if countries are concerned about respect for the dead, why has titanic not been encased where there is clearly a much greater risk of grave robbing?

Not only is there a greater risk of grave robbing, it has also happened and continue to happen. RMST has the salvage right. 
I would love to form a company that would encase Titanic in concrete. That would ensure work for the rest of my life and my decendants also. Try to drop silt or concrete from 3800 meters above the wreck and hit it.

So, again, there are several professional diving companies around the world and they are professional so not likely to engage in grave robbing.

let me I question your logic in one respect: If only professional companies are able to dive deep and professional companies are not likely to engage in grave robbing, who brought up all the artifact from Titanic and put them on display?

US courts get jursidiction because it is closer to their shores than ours and also it was an american owned ship after all

I thought Newfoundland was Canadian, and Titanic was British. Norfolk court took juristriction over the wreck but I doubt it had any international values before it was ratified by Canada, US, France and Great Britain. I am no Expert in international law though

[Stuart2007]

I'm a bit concerned that you think me some half wit. One is quite wrong. All I recall doing is pointing out that there have been some rather strange occurances with this sinking. I have pointed out plausible possibilities, but have not stated them as fact.

I merely ask how normal it is to cover a ship in concrete? How many ships have sunk with loss of life? I think maybe you should look beyond the current discusion.

Again, I am only putting one simple possibility along here: During the 90's the USSR was breaking up; there was a lot of military equipment that was lost/ sold etc. WHY is it not possible that there was something nasty on the ship? I'm not saying there was you understand, I merely point out a possibility that has been discussed before.

As for the difference between the sea bed depth and the depth to the top of the ship- have you any idea how much physical effort is needed to survive at that depth, let alone go wandering around a decomposig ship? Remember... it will be dark... cold... dangerous... sharp damaged metal, trip hazards, conger eels

You make it sound like someone going for a swim in a park lake- it isn't. As for the record of diving- I know that the land speed record is about 760mph- but not ALL cars will do it. Same applies to diving.

Stu

[Al Bundy]

I'm a bit concerned that you think me some half wit. One is quite wrong.

No Stuart I don't think you are some half wit. If I did I would not have this debate in the first place. I would just ignore you. 

All I recall doing is pointing out that there have been some rather strange occurances with this sinking. I have pointed out plausible possibilities, but have not stated them as fact.

I merely ask how normal it is to cover a ship in concrete?

I have never heard of any other wreck that was covered in concrete. Never, so I don't think it is normal. Then again it could be that it is just about the depth of the wreck. If higher, bodies would have been recovered, if lower there would have been no problem. Or maybe they use that as an excuse to cover it.

Again, I am only putting one simple possibility along here: During the 90's the USSR was breaking up; there was a lot of military equipment that was lost/ sold etc. WHY is it not possible that there was something nasty on the ship? I'm not saying there was you understand, I merely point out a possibility that has been discussed before.

It is very possible that there is something nasty on the ship. I agree. I am sure we would be horrified if we knew everything about military transportation on an every day basis. Agents/spies who uses public transportation, military using civil vehicles and so on. You make a very good point that in the early 1990 no one really knew who had control of soviet military equipment and its whereabouts and maybe a lot of money went into foreign intelligence trying to get a picture of the situation.

I will not speculate what was on board the ship. I chose to think of it as poor maintainance and poor seamanship.

You make it sound like someone going for a swim in a park lake- it isn't. As for the record of diving- I know that the land speed record is about 760mph- but not ALL cars will do it. Same applies to diving.

Stu

Nice comparations Stu   I was merely pointing out that eventhough it is tough and dangerous (divers have lost lives on the Andrea Doria who is "only" on around 56 meters of water) there are always some milionaires who will think of them selves as self made science person and do the dive. That is what my web quotes was about. Especially the BBC article. It can be done diving on the wreck if you have the equitment.

And yes it is a bit strange that these countries guard the wreck so closely. 

About the cars, have you heard of the cannonball runs?  millionaires who owns fast cars and use these cars to compete on highways. They disregard that it is illegal and does it anyway.

[Stuart2007]

The problem is that we are all basing opinions on second hand news. I haven't seen the wreck, so I can't confirm that there is any concrete on it.

I am generally very suspicious of any government now. I think we can all consider examples of countries recently acting in a less than transparent manner- I live in one of them

I travelled quite a bit into communist controlled countries before the end of the cold war and have read many of the now de-classified reports from the era and some of the secret 'wargames' that were acted out are quite worrying- which is why I am keeping an open mind on this. But the ship sank through incompetence and maybe maintenance- nothing else as far as i can see.

Stu