PT Boat Forum


Moderated by: Dick, Jeff D

The PT Boat Forum ª PT Boats of WWII ª  PT Boats - General

Prev Page | Next Page | Page: 8 of 11

Back to Topic Index Page 49 | Replies: 109 | Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11

 Author  Topic: Pure bilge (oxymoronic, isn't it?)
Will Day

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Will Day   Send Email To Will Day Posted on: Oct 16, 2014 - 10:59am
Not bad, guys....Seven pages and counting!

Will

Total Posts: 1909 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm | IP Logged

Jeff D

Moderator
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Jeff D   Send Email To Jeff D Posted on: Oct 16, 2014 - 12:43pm
You're welcome Dave, and congrats Will you made page 8!

The mostly unscripted video is unclear when it gets to them giving up looking for the remains of the stern and deciding to try the forward section. It sounded to me like they revised the area where they thought she went down after believing the wreckage the coast watcher saw beached was actually a Japanese vessel.



Total Posts: 1896 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | IP Logged

David Waples

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of David Waples  Posted on: Oct 16, 2014 - 8:24pm
It's amazing. Our friend at the PT SIG Facebook site is once again misrepresenting his own submission. He suggests Dr. Ballard "poo poos" the split boat theory when in fact Dr. Ballard simply states that the historian was "driving" the split boat theory. Dr. Ballard simply was hoping that it wasn't the case and was hoping for larger sections to locate. This before they even located what they found. Dr. Ballard's words and meaning are quite clear.

Dr. Ballard goes on to say that their equipment indicated something much larger below the sand and that when they tried to pull up on the training rod they were unable to get it to move.

Dave

David Waples

Total Posts: 1615 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm | IP Logged

David Buck

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of David Buck   Send Email To David Buck Posted on: Oct 16, 2014 - 9:05pm
Hmm how much bigger did he expect them(the two bits) to be, most timber boats in that area simply rot or are eaten away leaving any metal bits behind. He found one of those in an area where there was nothing else, not bad, see single object on sandy bottom investigate single object found boat search over, go home hero, total time spent around one week!

Just between you, me and the horse shed, Bet he thought that's the easiest thing he ever fond.

I'm still a little interested in his statement that "the sonar contact puts the find at about 23"wide and that's about the width of a PT Boat"??
Didn't someone tell him that the side had been sheared off, and with the knowledge that that included the starboard engine and so would have sorta taken 4'-5' off the width maybe more!?

Just talking out loud so to speak.

D.buck

Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am | IP Logged

  David Waples

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of David Waples  Posted on: Oct 17, 2014 - 5:15am
Quote:

Hmm how much bigger did he expect them(the two bits) to be, most timber boats in that area simply rot or are eaten away leaving any metal bits behind. He found one of those in an area where there was nothing else, not bad, see single object on sandy bottom investigate single object found boat search over, go home hero, total time spent around one week!

Just between you, me and the horse shed, Bet he thought that's the easiest thing he ever fond.

I'm still a little interested in his statement that "the sonar contact puts the find at about 23"wide and that's about the width of a PT Boat"??
Didn't someone tell him that the side had been sheared off, and with the knowledge that that included the starboard engine and so would have sorta taken 4'-5' off the width maybe more!?

Just talking out loud so to speak.

D.buck



Hi David,
First a key point. He didn't "expect" to find bigger parts. He was hoping, not expecting that the remains were bigger for purposes of locating it. Dr. Ballard talks about the expectations he had based on his previous investigation of Iron Bottom Sound where he found much smaller objects such as aircraft in relatively good condition. In the documentary they also discussed concern about the wood being completely destroyed.

Yes, the historian they brought along did as Dr. Ballard said drive the shear theory. It wasn't unfamiliar to Dr. Ballard or the team. After scouring the area they only found one target which was the confined debris field. Dr. Ballard said they had a "rectangular" shaped target. I do remember seeing video of the sonar image and it certainly wasn't a perfectly shaped rectangular boat hull.

I think they feel reasonably confident they found some of the remains of the 109. I expect we'll never know for sure. The only reason I'm driving this thread is because of the frustration of, you know who, misquoting and twisting around other people's credible work and words for his own benefit. It's certainly okay to have opinions. I certainly have had some and they've been proven wrong. I'm okay with that. It's all part of learning.

Dave




David Waples

Total Posts: 1615 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm | IP Logged

David Waples

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of David Waples  Posted on: Oct 17, 2014 - 6:07am
Amazing, I know Garth is reading this and quoting me in his rant. In the video you recently posted from the Kennedy Library is where Dr. Ballard mentioned the slice theory. I don't recall him discussing it in his book or the original documentary.
Dave

David Waples

Total Posts: 1615 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm | IP Logged

TED WALTHER

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of TED WALTHER   Send Email To TED WALTHER Posted on: Oct 17, 2014 - 8:54am

Dave! Don't just stand there, jump in that steamroller and drive this baby into the ground!!!
Take care,
TED


Total Posts: 2897 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP Logged

David Buck

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of David Buck   Send Email To David Buck Posted on: Oct 17, 2014 - 7:15pm
Ted hmmm interesting concept!

Dave both in the book and the Nat. Geo. Doco. the slice theory are put forward as the main manner in which the collision happened. Book, page 92 Para. 2, followed by a two page illustration that depicts it quite well. Doco has Ballard talking of both the theorys with the main one being the slice theory which is also depicted when they do the animated portrayal of the collision.

While Ballard got this right so to speak as far as how the events unfolded, I and I guess a few others (gauging by the amount of interest this topic gets) feel that there was a lot more of the wreck site that could have been shown, and that was deliberately kept from being shown.

For interest the book is 192 pages long and has 3 small and 1 medium sized images in it with no real idea what we are looking at other than saying that we are looking at a Torpedo tube!

In the Doco. we seem to spend a lot of time looking at the back of someones head or sticking their thumb up in the air and at one point we have Ballard explaining that the contrarotating propellers can be clearly made out yet all that we see is the middle of his back???
Also he states that they can clearly make out the Training Mech. of the tube, oops sorry have not found it yet in any of the videos, is there someone out there that can say they saw any of this or where there may be somewhere that this vision can be down loaded as Nat. Geo. do not appear to have it available and I don't think they went all that way for 4 pickees and a couple of minutes of video.

Its not Ballard but the production company that seems to have setup the video and the book to be rather vague so I guess that all I'm saying is that if they are going to say that they have further evidence then I (and others ) would like to see it rather than someones back at a point of interest.(if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck as they say but in this case they seem to be saying that you will just have to take their word for it and that they are right without really allowing us to see what they do or do not have).

O'well that's just the feeling I get from putting all this together Dave, so I believe there is still more to the story that's all.

Finding it is the fun bit!!!

Ta

D.buck

Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am | IP Logged

David Waples

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of David Waples  Posted on: Oct 17, 2014 - 9:01pm
Hi David,
You are correct. In the documentary Dr. Ballard is sitting with Max Kennedy discussing how the ship was sunk. They talk about the two possibilities which he identifies is a more perpendicular strike on the 109 on the starboard side (still at an angle), and a slicing cut through the boat. The narrator in the documentary, not Dr. Ballard later states that the slicing angle is supported by the evidence.

I checked the book and it doesn't specifically say "slice" or "shear". It merely says that the large part of the boat remained afloat.

Okay, here is the sonar shot they took of what they believe is the torpedo tube. This image came from the documentary. Dr. Ballard states that they could look down into the sand and they could see something under the sand with their sonar. Looking at this shot you can see that it is lighter than the surrounding area indicating that there could be something there. I don't know. I'm not a sonar expert. The artistic view in the documentary showing what they "might" find if the pulled back the sand is wishful thinking. But this lighter area is what he was referring to when he said they could look down into the sand.

 photo IMG_1587_zpsf4a718a4.jpg

I don't agree with the conspiracy theories. There simply isn't anything else to show. Not much of anything so they spent the majority of the time talking about the people and such. For us purists it would have been nice to have them point out the details of the torpedo tube such as the impulse chamber and the training arm Bollard said they grabbed on to. Knowing Keresey I don't think he would have put up with any BS. The man spoke his mind when he didn't agree with something. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Enough of this. I'm going to go fishing.

Dave



David Waples

Total Posts: 1615 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm | IP Logged

David Buck

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of David Buck   Send Email To David Buck Posted on: Oct 18, 2014 - 1:37am
Dave, enjoy your fishing.

Thanks for talking its been fun,

Ta

D.buck

Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am | IP Logged

Prev Page | Next Page

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11


Lock Topic

 

Forum Legend

New Member

Reply to topic

More than 25 posts | Full Member

Reply to topic with quoted message

More than 50 posts | Advanced Member

Edit Message

More than 150 posts | MASTER

View profile

More than 300 posts | TOP BOSS

Email member