Where Was the Far West Moored?

[fred]

Billy--

I stand corrected! Very nice job & I shall make the necessary corrections in my notes. Thank you.

As for the other issue, I shall be addressing that shortly.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[fred]

“q”—

I am beginning to smell a rat here and I am not sure exactly why. You are becoming— no, you have already become—one of the more miserable, nasty excuses for a human being that I have seen in my short time posting on the Internet. The worst part about it is that I have actually wasted some valuable time going over some old messages and posts because your sloppy & perfunctory writing reminds me of someone I used to respect, someone whose opinions I valued & thought of w/ the highest esteem. Does Tullock’s Creek ring a bell? How about anything to do w/ the “Big Island”? No…? Hm-m-m-m. Maybe I have you confused w/ a couple of other people. Maybe.

As for your vindictive & destructive posts, I have found over the years that people who claim such great knowledge, who think of themselves as quite above it all, are in reality extremely insecure. In some instances it has to do w/ their lack of success in school, their miserable failures in the business world or their careers, their chemical habits & dependencies & their cowardly failure to do anything about it, or even their sexual behavior and preferences. Is that latter instance your problem? Even your latest (?) moniker—“q”—smacks of some sort of sexually wrenching problem (I can think of a couple of charmers that letter could stand for, I’ll tell you!). Be that as it may, however, I simply cannot understand how anyone, so unhappy, would spend so much time berating idiots such as we on this site. Especially since no one is paying very much attention to you except for the occasional bone. Arf, arf! My, my… how debilitating, how beneath you.

So here’s some advice from an old man whose careers (note the plural) have probably far transcended your silly little, trite existence. Take that putrefying stump that sits atop your shoulders and haul it off somewhere & stop bespawling us w/ your trash. Go to a site that more befits your moods & your laughable arrogance. Inhale some of the smoke enveloping the other pinhead who haunts this site from time to time. You deserve one another. He seems like an old besotted hippie left in the mud of some long-forgotten rock/ drug concert. You'd be right at home, crying in one another's laps. You'd enjoy the grovel. You both appear to be suffering from tympane, as the rot usually travels to the lower extremities as well. Haul it all off & dump it; maybe Scout and I will be able to find you near the remains of the “Far West.” And stop hiding behind the letter "q." I abhor cowards.

Your once-loving admirer,
Fred.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Boy, you're a regular ray of sunshine aren't you q? Talk about schadenfreude!

Anyway, it may or may not interest you to learn that before beginning a second career in academia I spent many years earning my keep as a commercial diver (hence my involvement now with maritime history). I can tell you that in my experience, both in the North Sea oil industry, and in many civil engineering projects, that zero visibility is the norm. It is no barrier to required work being undertaken.

Your reference to your 'serious doubt' that any of the Far West's timbers having survived is misconceived - and ironically you yourself give the clue as to why, when you make great play of the Missouri being "referred to as the "BIG MUDDY!" Depending upon its mineral content, that very mud will, to a greater or lesser degree, act as a preservative to anything sealed within it - including timbers. For the same reason, your statement that "any metal would be seriously rusted, if not entirely decomposed by this day" shows your lack of knowledge on these matters. I would add that finding an artefact 'seriously rusted' is, archaeologically speaking, counted a great success!

May I gently suggest that, on this subject at least, you "do a bit of research before throwing your hat into the proverbial ring."

I hope Scout and Fred carry through what is at the moment the germ of a great idea, and I wish them every success in any attempt to retrieve something from the Far West if the project comes to fruition.

Ciao,
GAC

q said:

I really do hate to put a damper upon this fine tea party. But I think someone needs to do a bit of research before throwing your hat into the proverbial ring.

Quotes from Fred:
Scout--

Let me know if you ever decide to try. I'll go w/ you; I'll carry the shovels. Seriously.

Best wishes,
Fred.
Scout--

Like I said... name the date! Crazier things have been done.

Best wishes,
Fred.


You may want to do some better research than what had been provided for by some here. First of all I Seriously doubt that any timber from that august vessel has survived to this day. And any metal would be seriously rusted, if not entirely decomposed by this day. In either event there is questionable value to anything that is left.

Then you have this problem. Getting there....
Over the years, the Corps of Engineers has squeezed the water that used to spread all across the Missouri's floodplain into a deep and narrow channel, reducing the river's width by two-thirds. To ease barge travel, it has sliced off hairpin turns that once confounded steamboats, reducing the river's length by 127 miles. And it has managed the river to maintain a reliable nine-foot-deep barge channel at all times, eliminating the ebbs and
flows and shoals and shifts that used to make navigation so treacherous and uncertain. Muddy banks that used to erode and shift by the hour were armored with unyielding rock revetments. Shallow backwaters and chutes filled with silt. Wetlands were gradually converted into farmland.

From a point of view of the Missouri's ecology, the engineering
accomplishment has been an utter disaster. It has eliminated nine-tenths of the river's sandbars and islands, in which no doubt the sandbar you are referring to is now long gone!
The Corps offices points out, if you would care to inquire, that, during the spring, when the river would naturally swell, the Corps is holding back water behind the upstream dams. In the summer, when the river would naturally dwindle, exposing the sandbars and islands where shorebirdsbuild nests, the Corps is releasing the extra water to float barges in their 9 foot deep barge channel.

And last, but certainly not the least is the reason for it's nickname. It is referred to as the "BIG MUDDY!" The reason. People who have tried to go underwater, like in scuba gear and such, say that you can't see your hand, even if you put it in front of your face! The river is so full of silt and sand, you couldn't even begin to salvage anything underwater, let alone surive the dive. And that's saying if ~ if the sand bar you claim it's on is even then still there.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Oops! Sorry Fred, was typing mine out when your own response to friend 'q' went up!

Regards,
GAC

[fred]

A Public Apology

I apologize to all my friends on this site for the invective I have spewed, above. I have been privately asked to retract it, but I have refused to do so. I have come under personal attack by this "q" creature & I do not intend to endure it any longer. He/she has made a mockery of this board and all it does is waste our time. If I have offended anyone by the tone of my message, I apologize. As many of you probably already know, I do not take personal attacks very well.

Best wishes to you all,
Fred.

[q]

Retract it you should Fred. I was merely pointing out some serious misperceptions about a river that I live near to. And do know something about. And finally through I don't know to what you were addressing most of that putrefied messaged to. May I point out that my message was one of concern. "Look before you leap"! It seems like you do alot leaping before you look, and that message was just one instance.

[markland]

fred said:

A Public Apology

I apologize to all my friends on this site for the invective I have spewed, above. I have been privately asked to retract it, but I have refused to do so. I have come under personal attack by this "q" creature & I do not intend to endure it any longer. He/she has made a mockery of this board and all it does is waste our time. If I have offended anyone by the tone of my message, I apologize. As many of you probably already know, I do not take personal attacks very well.

Best wishes to you all,
Fred.

Don't worry Fred, we still think you are just a teddy bear!

Q, to elucidate further upon GAC's most excellent post, let me share a personal experience.

In 1977 at Hamilton, North Carolina, activities were being performed to recover artifacts, including cannon, from the Roanoke River where they had been dumped from the ramparts of Ft. Branch in 1864 by Confederate forces when abandoning that position. The Roanoke is like the Missouri in that it has a fast current, an evil reputation for channel changes, and is extremely muddy. Being a community college student and photographer for the school paper, I took the opportunity to go up there and watch the recovery process. They brought out several cannon as well as some of the wooden carriages. The fact that they had been there for approximately 114 years with only moderate damage to the wooden carriages seems to imply that you don't have the faintest conception of what you speak.

For more, including pictures of the recovery expedition and photos (including wooden carriages) see the following link:

www.fortbranchcivilwarsite.com/

Look under the Restoration tab and select Cannon Recovery.

Best of wishes,

Billy

P.S. I wish I had caught with a camera the expression of the workman's face who, when they were hoisting a cannon up, had a three-foot eel slide out of the barrel and onto his head!

[q]

As for you Markland, retreat while you still have the chance. There is no similarity one river to the other. Do the research first. Considerable dredging was done to the Missouri to get the channel they needed for the barge channel. And no just because someone found an old paddlewheeler out in the middle of his pasture. That doesn't mean that at one time a ship didn't sink there. Because the river once flowed there. Where now it doesn't. That isn't a modern marvel, just luck. And if your Far West is still out there appearing and reappearing on some 1/10th of a chance sandbar, the weathering from such occurances would take it's toll. And they wouldn't have the good fortune of the tale you just previously told about the Roanoake

[Lawtonka]

Man, what's up ! Here in South Carolina we just recovered the CSS Hunley Confederate Submarine from it's watery grave. The condition of the vessel has far exceeded all expectations! This one came out salt water. There have been many first rate artifacts recovered from it and they are learning more and more at time goes on as the to engineering that went into the sub.

So, I have no reason to believe that something of the Far West could still be of value. Without a vision, we might perish.

[George Armstrong Custer]

q said:

As for you Markland, retreat while you still have the chance.

Wow - there's a CSS-ism if ever I saw one! Q - looking over the strangled syntax of your post here, and the longer one you did the other day on Mari Sandoz, I'd like to ask if English is your first language?

Your response to Billy shows that you have no concept whatsoever of the forces at work in the preservation of artefacts in a marine environment. Have you ever heard the expression 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'?

Fred - for what it's worth, you've nothing to apologise for in my view; we're dealing with someone with a serious attitude problem here..........

Ciao,
GAC

[Tricia]

Just to add my two cents worth ... as I recall, some extremely expensive--and desireable-- lumber now comes from the bottom of Lake Superior. The logs have been underwater for years and were the result of old sawmills dotting its coastline. Granted, the greatest of Great Lakes probably doesn't have the ebb and flow of a moving river, but it goes to show just what can survive in what most of us would consider miserable conditions.

So, let's find the Far West ... ahoy!
LMC

[markland]

"As for you Markland, retreat while you still have the chance."

Sheesh, you forgot to threaten my little doggie too. Retreat from what Q? Your snippiness? Don't be an ass.

"There is no similarity one river to the other. "

There are similarities between rivers just the same as there are differences. But then, I am neither a hydrologist nor marine scientist like you.

"Considerable dredging was done to the Missouri to get the channel they needed for the barge channel."

You are a master at stating the obvious.

"And no just because someone found an old paddlewheeler out in the middle of his pasture. That doesn't mean that at one time a ship didn't sink there. Because the river once flowed there. Where now it doesn't. That isn't a modern marvel, just luck."

For some reason, I had a hard time understanding the above. Research enabled the finders of the Arabia to find the ship which was documented as having sunk in the Missouri. When finding a ship, the presumption is made (and usually correct) that the ship was at one time afloat on a body of water. Granted, floods can carry a boat inland but if there was that much flooding, the research should reveal the event. Plus, being on dry land makes the salvage so much easier.

"And if your Far West is still out there appearing and reappearing on some 1/10th of a chance sandbar, the weathering from such occurances would take it's toll. And they wouldn't have the good fortune of the tale you just previously told about the Roanoake."

Actually, I think that your "1/10 of a chance sandbar" comment is too high. There were thousands on sandbars in the Missouri. If the Far West hit a sandbar at all. Snags got most of the ships on the Missouri. If aground on a sandbar, they could usually get them off. From the limited reading on the subject I have done, my understanding is that once snagged and a hole opened, the steamboat captain would try to get to the shore before the ship went down. That is what happened to the boat I mentioned whose remnants are still occasionally visible. I suspect, off the cuff, that also may have been what happened to the Far West. But, I haven't done any research on the topic-yet.

Billy

[markland]

Q, just thought of something. The fact that a paddlewheeler went down north of St. Louis in the late 1800's and it's remnants are still visible during low-water periods effectively negates your entire school of red herrings about river differences, sandbars and dredging.

I will find out where I read that and post the site.

Billy

[Diane Merkel]

I find it interesting that "q" is quick to dismiss the notion that something would remain of a steamer that we all know existed but is adamant that Custer was the father of a child whose parentage has never been confirmed.

q, since you enjoy berating people for past statements, the following are your statements on the Wiki thread, all made within a 36 hour window:

"I would be interested in helping to moderate it for you."

" I would be delighted to serve."

"I am most certainly not at this time willing to offer nor contribute my services to anything here. Nor, may I add, do I think that there is anyone here qualified to do the job Diane asked."

As I said on that thread, "I could not disagree with you more" concerning your last statement, and there was no reason to make Fred the object of your attack in this thread. He was not the one who first stated that relics might be salvageable.

[elisabeth]

Some indications of the kinds of things that can be salvaged, and from much further back:

www.abc.se/~m10354/publ/maryrose.htm

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vikings/ships.html

tinyurl.com/lnafl