Not Looking Good

ancient_mariner said:
Looks like a vessel with capability to reach the 'lost' vehicle is on the scene.
Click to expand...
Going by what experts are saying, the robot that could reach them is on the scene, the only trouble is, if they do find it, there is nothing the robot can actually do to raise the sub, they would somehow need to fasten a tether to pull it up, the robot cannot do this
 
That area is the grave of the 1500 or so who were lost with the Titanic, which was found back in 1985. I don't see any real justification for continually disturbing that grave and, surely, the original loss was big enough without unnecessarily adding to it.
 
It looks like they may have found it, or debris from it, looks like it imploded so at least they didn't suffer, if the debris is the remains of the submersible.
 
For their sake I hope it is the sub debris.
Would have been a quick way to go rather than a lingering death.
 
What a shame, despite taking what was maybe a silly risk, they didn't deserve to die for it.

It would seem they were lost all along.
 
Dale. said:
What a shame, despite taking what was maybe a silly risk, they didn't deserve to die for it.

It would seem they were lost all along.
Click to expand...

A friend who is an expert thinks it was 4 days ago, sudden imploded. As some of the debris is from the sub.
 
Fuji Dave said:
A friend who is an expert thinks it was 4 days ago, sudden imploded. As some of the debris is from the sub.
Click to expand...
That was my thought some days ago.
 
i suspect the debris field also includes things not being mentioned at this time until they speak to the families proper
 
And for those who haven't looked... Some of the comments about this tragedy on twitter really do shake your faith in humanity. How people can be so vile on an easily accessible platform about the deaths of others I just don't know.
 
woof woof said:
And for those who haven't looked... Some of the comments about this tragedy on twitter really do shake your faith in humanity. How people can be so vile on an easily accessible platform about the deaths of others I just don't know.
Click to expand...

Sadly in todays world there are many who are sad pathetic stupid creeps, that will never change.
 
I heard that it was more risky than those odd forays into space that people are paying for.

Maybe there will be some kind of control of extreme tourism now. Although many deaths on Everest don't seem to restrict the number of climbers to a sensible level.

(edited to correct the claimers = climbers typo)
 
Last edited:
Pound Coin said:
I heard that it was more risky than those odd forays into space that people are paying for.

Maybe there will be some kind of control of extreme tourism now. Although many deaths on Everest don't seem to restrict the number of claimers to a sensible level.
Click to expand...
I feel that the main difference between people who accept the risks of climbing mountains such as Everest and either space tourism or this type of dive is that those who climb mountains (although it can't be done on the cheap) have to expend supreme dedication and effort. Space tourism and this type of tourism only seem to require money.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I feel that the main difference between people who accept the risks of climbing mountains such as Everest and either space tourism or this type of dive is that those who climb mountains (although it can't be done on the cheap) have to expend supreme dedication and effort. Space tourism and this type of tourism only seem to require money.
Click to expand...
Agreed, although you do need a fair bit of money to climb Everest too, I think?
 
Fuji Dave said:
Sadly in todays world there are many who are sad pathetic stupid creeps, that will never change.
Click to expand...
On the other hand: if it's acceptable to express sympathy, then surely it's acceptable to express the opposite?
 
A sad & tragic loss for those closely affected by the deaths.

To the wider world, perhaps a pointer that things need to change if such tourism is to continue?

PS an Navy ex-submariner I know has posted on his FB feed (because folk not in the submarine community were asking) about implosions and the effect. Too gruesome to post here :(

If you wish read it, on FB look for member Richard Swaffield.
 
Last edited:
On a side in regard to the search etc ....

A news item yesterday mentioned that the network of Atlantic acoustic buoys detected an implosive event on Day 1 at about the time that Titan lost contact.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
On the other hand: if it's acceptable to express sympathy, then surely it's acceptable to express the opposite?
Click to expand...
I think that even if people feel that it's morally wrong to dive on a mass grave (as I do) then they should also be respectful to those who died doing so.
Box Brownie said:
A sad & tragic loss for those closely affected by the deaths.

To the wider world, perhaps a pointer that things need to change if such tourism is to continue?

PS an Navy ex-submariner I know has posted on his FB feed (because folk not in the submarine community were asking) about implosions and the effect. Too gruesome to post here :(

If you wish read it, on FB look for member Richard Swaffield.
Click to expand...
Instant death then, the least bad that it could be. I think that the US Admiral made it clear in his interview yesterday that there would be no bodies to recover.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I think that even if people feel that it's morally wrong to dive on a mass grave (as I do) then they should also be respectful to those who died doing so.

Instant death then, the least bad that it could be. I think that the US Admiral made it clear in his interview yesterday that there would be no bodies to recover.
Click to expand...
Yes, too quick to even realise what is happening.

He remarked himself that better that, than the suffering that happened on the Kursk.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I think that even if people feel that it's morally wrong to dive on a mass grave (as I do) then they should also be respectful to those who died doing so.
Click to expand...
Without wanting to start a foolish argument: where does this need to "be respectful to those who died doing so" come from?

If someone does something that we disapprove of and harms themselves in doing so, why shouldn't those who wish to do so feel schadenfreude? I hasten to add that I am neutral on the subject but am curious as to why some feel the need to "rend their clothes and scatter ash on their heads" over people they don't know or even have a connection with.
 
I do think it was good that they found the Titanic years ago, but I also think it was bang out of order to go back down and bring up artifacts from an under water grave. Just as bad as someone going and digging up a grave to steal rings off the dead.
Hopefully now they will make some sort of law to leave the titanic well alone after all of this.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Without wanting to start a foolish argument: where does this need to "be respectful to those who died doing so" come from?

If someone does something that we disapprove of and harms themselves in doing so, why shouldn't those who wish to do so feel schadenfreude? I hasten to add that I am neutral on the subject but am curious as to why some feel the need to "rend their clothes and scatter ash on their heads" over people they don't know or even have a connection with.
Click to expand...
In general the "respect" aspect is the same as one might show to any that have died, under whatever circumstances.

In respect of risky sports, I used to rock climb & a bit of mountaineering. This was in my teens into 20's.......a Doctor at the hospital department that I worked and got along very well with was a member of an Alpine Mountaineering Club. I learned a few years after he had left that hospital that he died on a climb. He was a very experienced climber but made a cardinal and unfortunate error in his rope handling that ended his life.

I remembered him (at the time) with some sense of loss but with the knowledge that he died doing something that he enjoyed.

In the pre-internet days it did not make news or comment other than those in the circle of the sport. Nowadays I have no doubt that his error would lead to much finger pointing & judgement makings.
 
Box Brownie said:
In general the "respect" aspect is the same as one might show to any that have died, under whatever circumstances.
Click to expand...
I take your point but that just carries my question further: I can understand the sadness one feels when losing someone close (I lost both my parents before I was 13) but I fail to understand why we should be "respectfull of the dead" in general.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Without wanting to start a foolish argument: where does this need to "be respectful to those who died doing so" come from?

If someone does something that we disapprove of and harms themselves in doing so, why shouldn't those who wish to do so feel schadenfreude? I hasten to add that I am neutral on the subject but am curious as to why some feel the need to "rend their clothes and scatter ash on their heads" over people they don't know or even have a connection with.
Click to expand...
As my old mother used to say, "If you can't think of something good to say about someone it's better to say nothing at all".
Fuji Dave said:
I do think it was good that they found the Titanic years ago, but I also think it was bang out of order to go back down and bring up artifacts from an under water grave. Just as bad as someone going and digging up a grave to steal rings off the dead.
Hopefully now they will make some sort of law to leave the titanic well alone after all of this.
Click to expand...
I've never even understood the obsession with the Titanic. 1500 people died, but that isn't even in the top 20 of maritime disasters - 4,386 died on the Phillipo ferry Doña Paz in 1987, but the victims were poor and nobody noticed. The greatest loss ever was the German ship Wilhelm Gustioff, carrying civilians in 1945, 9400 died, but how many people have even heard of her? What about the Goya, with 7,200 lost, or our own HMT Lacastria, with an estimated 7,000 lost?

The only thing about the Titanic loss is that a few rich people died. The fact that 705 people survived because of her radio distress signals wasn't the first sea rescue via radio, that was the Republic in 1908, with 4000 rescued and only 6 lost, but they weren't wealthy.

The Titanic wasn't found until 1985 because her stated distress position was wrong by 9 miles. Captain Stanley Lord of the Californian gave a correct estimation of her actual position but nobody believed him at the time and he was forever blamed for not acting on her lamp signals, which were too far away.
 
Garry Edwards said:
As my old mother used to say, "If you can't think of something good to say about someone it's better to say nothing at all".

I've never even understood the obsession with the Titanic. 1500 people died, but that isn't even in the top 20 of maritime disasters - 4,386 died on the Phillipo ferry Doña Paz in 1987, but the victims were poor and nobody noticed. The greatest loss ever was the German ship Wilhelm Gustioff, carrying civilians in 1945, 9400 died, but how many people have even heard of her? What about the Goya, with 7,200 lost, or our own HMT Lacastria, with an estimated 7,000 lost?

The only thing about the Titanic loss is that a few rich people died. The fact that 705 people survived because of her radio distress signals wasn't the first sea rescue via radio, that was the Republic in 1908, with 4000 rescued and only 6 lost, but they weren't wealthy.

The Titanic wasn't found until 1985 because her stated distress position was wrong by 9 miles. Captain Stanley Lord of the Californian gave a correct estimation of her actual position but nobody believed him at the time and he was forever blamed for not acting on her lamp signals, which were too far away.
Click to expand...

Well I have to say for my self, I had not ever heard or read about those deaths that you say so sad.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Without wanting to start a foolish argument: where does this need to "be respectful to those who died doing so" come from?

If someone does something that we disapprove of and harms themselves in doing so, why shouldn't those who wish to do so feel schadenfreude? I hasten to add that I am neutral on the subject but am curious as to why some feel the need to "rend their clothes and scatter ash on their heads" over people they don't know or even have a connection with.
Click to expand...

Common decency.

It is I suppose quite likely that surviving loved ones and friends will be aware of the comments on social media even if they've avoided seeing them themselves.

I always remember something my late dad said to me. He was a man who went to war as a sailor on warships and although not doing so face to face he was a part of a crew who killed people. Large numbers of them. What he said was that we should never be happy at the death of anyone. We may be relieved that they're no longer alive to do what they did in this world and that is as far as decency should take us. I think he was 100% right.

In the case of these tourist / explorers they're not Nazis, murderers or rapists and to take delight in their deaths or to use their deaths in some misguided political debate does seem utterly wrong on every level I can think of and is IMO indefensible.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
...or even to use their deaths in some misguided political debate does seem utterly wrong on every level I can think of and is IMO indefensible.
Click to expand...
That is what I fail to understand. It seems to me that everything is open to discussion or pretty soon nothing is.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That is what I fail to understand. It seems to me that everything is open to discussion or pretty soon nothing is.
Click to expand...

I think it's indefensible because the "crime" these people have seemingly committed include being rich and allegedly donating to causes others object to and lets not forget that there are a lot of rich people who both donate to and support people, parties and causes on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Should we cheer their deaths when their time comes? I don't think so and I agree with my late dad, the most we should do when wrongdoers die is be relieved that their time here has ended and they can no longer do wrong. In the case of these tourist adventurers, IMO they're not wrong doers and by no measure do they deserve the outpourings of the more extreme on social media and for what? Clicks and likes?
 
IMO This is what should be done, leave the titanic well alone and ban any and ever tourist visit to the underwater graves. Make sure there is a full investigation of all the loop holes that the company used for the rich tourist, Got be be many things under water that people can go and visit, but not at this depth costing lives.
 
Fuji Dave said:
IMO This is what should be done, leave the titanic well alone and ban any and ever tourist visit to the underwater graves. Make sure there is a full investigation of all the loop holes that the company used for the rich tourist, Got be be many things under water that people can go and visit, but not at this depth costing lives.
Click to expand...
I may be misremembering, but I recall an interview with Bob Ballard who said he regretted not taking anything from titanic when he found it. He thought it best to leave it undisturbed, but if he had taken something, I believe salvage law would have made it "his" ship. He would have looked after it a lot better than Rmst have.

If you have half an hour, Google up who owns the Titanic. It's actually quite interesting and a little bit worrying. I didn't know about the wedding on it for example.
 
JonathanRyan said:
I may be misremembering, but I recall an interview with Bob Ballard who said he regretted not taking anything from titanic when he found it. He thought it best to leave it undisturbed, but if he had taken something, I believe salvage law would have made it "his" ship. He would have looked after it a lot better than Rmst have.

If you have half an hour, Google up who owns the Titanic. It's actually quite interesting and a little bit worrying. I didn't know about the wedding on it for example.
Click to expand...

Reading The Journal it's complicated they say, depending where you come from. Scumbags cashing in on selling over 5,000 bits that they got from the titanic.
 
Fuji Dave said:
Reading The Journal it's complicated they say, depending where you come from. Scumbags cashing in on selling over 5,000 bits that they got from the titanic.
Click to expand...
Yes, a really short summary would be "America passed a law but everybody ignored them because they don't own the high seas and law didn't work like that". And then, yeah, profiteering....
 
Fuji Dave said:
It looks like the company will be in a lot of trouble, massive payments I can see in the future, but I'd NOT pay the family of the CEO.


www.bbc.co.uk

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

Warnings over the sub's safety were dismissed by OceanGate's CEO, emails seen by the BBC show.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I wonder, even though no longer associated with Oceangate, if the co-founder will be included in any "action" against the company???

In principle the mavericks in any industry create changes.........but where there exists experimental 'cutting edge' designs......that should be simply that a test system, not for use with members of the public and profit for the company!

In a sense it is a damning indictment of the (USA?) system where Rushton Stock (did I get the name right?) could sell 'seats' on the uncertified vessel. And a sad hubris (not listening for some years to industry peers) that he so trusted his own technology to his ultimate demise :(
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
I wonder, even though no longer associated with Oceangate, if the co-founder will be included in any "action" against the company???

In principle the mavericks in any industry create changes.........but where there exists experimental 'cutting edge' designs......that should be simply that a test system, not for use with members of the public and profit for the company!

In a sense it is a damning indictment of the (USA?) system where Rushton Stock (did I get the name right?) could sell 'seats' on the uncertified vessel. And a sad hubris (not listening for some years to industry peers) that he so trusted his own technology to his ultimate demise :(
Click to expand...

It sounds like Stockton Rush did it his way and would not listen to any help/advice, he payed the price but sadly so did the rest of them even the young 19yr old who only went so to please his father.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top