|
Post by q on May 11, 2006 12:20:44 GMT -6
GAC - 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'?
No, you stop. The Hunley Commission expedition to the wreck, dove on the sub near Sullivan island off of Charleston, SC in about 30 feet of water. The diving conditions were poor due to bad weather and massive numbers of jellyfish and the expedition at that time was behind schedule. It wasn't due to river silts because it wasn't found in the river. It was found in the bay next to Sullivan Island. The Hunley after its extraction was bathed in an electrolisys bath at a conservation center and wasn't to see the light of day for 7 years.. Were the Hunley to be exposed to the air during that 7 years it would corrode into dust. The electrolisys bath leaches out the chemical salts from the long immersion on the ocean floor so that the hull can be stable in the air. Shows what little you know. Stick to the battle your much better at that.
DM - 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.
Diane you really need a reality check. Go back and read what I said concerning the child. I made no such assertion that I was..."adamant that Custer was the father of a child whose parentage has never been confirmed." I said that..."I didn't know." You lied for me. Care to applogise. No, I suppose not. Because your never wrong, are you?
DM - 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.
And if you and Fred would really care to process what I said, then we wouldn't be having this misunderstanding now would we? Just exactly like your assertions of what I said and didn't say. Your good at putting words into other people's mouths. Try just for once not to do that. And instead read not just what you want to hear. But what people are really saying!
|
|
|
Post by Scout on May 11, 2006 12:21:36 GMT -6
I think we would use snorkels instead of shovels...q, finding the wreck is quite realistic. They found the Titantic , Monitor and Merrimac didn't they? The Far West is probably scattered on the bottom but the location. over 300 ships sank on the Missouri at some point. Of course I would supervise the dive....I will send fred and GAC 'down' to locate the wreck. I, of course will take credit for the operation. Markland...I'll meet you down at the site. Good points Jim. Sand is really good for keeping metal from rusting..it seems to seal off the relics. The Cairo, which was sunk in the
Back in the 1980's the Mississippi was very low. The remains of a large steamboat could be seen right across from Memphis...on a sandbar. Tennesse and Arkansas got into a legal fight over who owned the wreck...it was a boat that sank in 1880's. Not much was found other than a lot of wood and some metal parts.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on May 11, 2006 12:24:39 GMT -6
sorry for incomplete sentences...computer acting strange. Point on the Cairo...sunk in the Yazoo River during the Civil War and pulled up in the 1960's...thousands of items in mint shape thanks to the sand burying it.
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on May 11, 2006 12:38:35 GMT -6
q, you wrote to Diane: "Diane you really need a reality check. Go back and read what I said......"
Why don't you take a leaf out of your own book q, old boy, and go back and read what I've said on this thread. Then come back and explain your rant to me about the Hunley, which I've never mentioned...........
Ciao, GAC
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on May 11, 2006 12:41:55 GMT -6
Of course I would supervise the dive....I will send fred and GAC 'down' to locate the wreck. I, of course will take credit for the operation. Markland...I'll meet you down at the site. Damn you, Scout - I was drinking a hot cup of coffee when I read that; damned near choked myself laughing! Regards, GAC
|
|
|
Post by Scout on May 11, 2006 12:45:26 GMT -6
If I recall correctly the FAR WEST sank slowly after snagging on a sandbar. I believe this correct...it took several days for the river to claim her. ..probably no gems there though...still would like to have a relic of her. Elisabeth...thanks for an interesting thread.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on May 11, 2006 12:48:46 GMT -6
GAC...forgot to address your question earlier on the antique dealer who supposedly has bell. Our bud Ron Pickard works for him part time...don't think there is a website. I'll check.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 11, 2006 12:59:46 GMT -6
q-- You said, " The electrolisys bath leaches out the chemical salts from the long immersion on the ocean floor so that the hull can be stable in the air. Shows what little you know. Stick to the battle your much better at that. [/i] Am I missing something??? Isn't the Missouri & Yellowstone Rivers " FRESH Bodies of Water??? Jim P.S. - Scout, I do have a P.A.D.I. certification, just in case Fred & Billy run into trouble in the MUDDY MISSOURI"!?!?, BUT I'd still give you all the CREDIT!!!
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on May 11, 2006 13:16:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 11, 2006 14:38:17 GMT -6
If I recall correctly the FAR WEST sank slowly after snagging on a sandbar. Are we sure that's the "Far West" and not "q"? Let's get something straight here, "q." Any apologizing I have done-- or will do in the future-- is directed at the people on this board who I respect & whose valuable time is taken up by answering the noxious drivel you post. It is obvious that your knowledge of rivers, streams, oceans, artifacts, wrecks and the like is right up there w/ your knowledge of the LBH & Custer moving 5 companies to Ford B to attack, paying no attention to the archeological evidence that says otherwise. Or are all those historians, scientists, & archeologists, like all of us, incorrect as well? The words I have chosen for you were decidedly well-chosen as far as I am concerned. You are a snivelling, whining, trouble-making little strumpet, w/ nothing better to do than to spout your ludicrous theories on this site. Quite frankly, nothing you have posted here is worth reading & every theory or so-called fact you claim is riddled w/ holes, otherwise you wouldn't have everyone here challenging you. If you knew as much as you think you do, you wouldn't be hiding behind the anonimity of your nickname & you wouldn't be drawing the wrath of every poster on this board. Like I said, you are an abject little coward who isn't worth a nit. Go home, stay home, & find a different coven to haunt. Try going into the light.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 11, 2006 14:42:30 GMT -6
Scout,
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 11, 2006 14:44:07 GMT -6
Scout,
Here's where the Far West lies:
1883, Oct. 30, Mullanthy Island, 7 mi. below St. Charles, Mo., snagged and lost.[/i]
Get Fred, GAC, Billy lined up and we'll meet ya down there!?!? ;D
Jim
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 11, 2006 14:56:15 GMT -6
"P.S. - Scout, I do have a P.A.D.I. certification, just in case Fred & Billy run into trouble in the MUDDY MISSOURI"!?!?, BUT I'd still give you all the CREDIT!!!"
Jim, you have a severe case of role-misconception going on. I stay on the banks of the Missouri watching the little bubbles come to the surface from Fred and Scout and whomever else. If the bubbles cease coming to the surface, I will finish my cold, cold beer (someone has to ensure that it is not spoiled and is safe to drink!) and loudly yell "Help!" To show my concern for those below the surface, I may actually get out of my lawn chair to shout.
I am looking forward to this road trip!
Best of wishes,
Billy
P.S. Fred, lay off the cigars and start practicing holding your breath!
|
|
|
Post by q on May 11, 2006 15:39:56 GMT -6
Scout - If I recall correctly the FAR WEST sank slowly after snagging on a sandbar.
That's not the only thing beneath those waters that are treacherous. I have a good friend who works for the government and has to go into those waters to make inspections. I am not at liberty to describe his work. However, needless to say the man is an experienced diver and was hired because he was a Navy Seal. And even he is scared out of his wits every time he goes down there. There's sunken tree's and limbs that move around because of the current and god only knows what else down there that can "snag" you. And if you can't see it, you can't get yourself unsnagged. And the chance for your bubbly return to the surface not so cheerful, because no one would know where your at.
Go ahead Fred dive right on in. Billy knows, because he's not that far from that river either. And anyone who's smart enough would sit and watch from the river bank. All I have to say. If that craft is below water, it's best left there. And if the water don't get you, the quick mud and/or quick sand will. You said, "Try going into the light." I think you need to have someone say that to you. Right before you dive in.
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on May 11, 2006 16:06:55 GMT -6
q wrote of having a friend who is:
"an experienced diver and was hired because he was a Navy Seal. And even he is scared out of his wits every time he goes down there."
q - I don't make this accusation lightly, but for me you've just revealed yourself to be either a damned liar or a fantasist - maybe both. How you thought you'd get away with such a preposterous statement when you know my background beggars belief! Take it from me: No professional diver would go into a job 'scared out of his wits'. He would be a liability to himself and to the rest of the team he's working with. One can be apprehensive of a tricky job - yes. Professional experience, planning and preparation are what counts - leaving no room for someone who was 'scared out of their wits' - they'd be swiftly removed from the team, at least any that I've ever worked on. For me, you've just proved everything that Fred has accused you of being. And I'm more hacked off than I can say at your spoiling a great and light-hearted thread - we've had too much of that on the forum in recent weeks without you starting now.
GAC
|
|