Conflicting Accounts of the Rouse's Demise
John Hanson
Kurson's book, Shadow Divers. Both authors mention the airlifting of
the Rouses in great detail, yet, the accounts are nearly completely
the opposite in regard to the airlift of the Rouses by the Coast
Guard.
Chowdhury, in The Last Dive, has Chatterton arguing with the Coast
Guard swimmer to take Chris's lifeless body on the helicopter with
Chrissy, and the swimmer refusing a number of times until he gives in.
Chatterton pointed to Chris Rouse. "You've got to take him."
"We can't risk another basket drop for a dead guy!"
"Are you a medical doctor?"
"Then you can't tell me he's dead for certain! You've got to take
him."
"NO!"
"Look, the kid thinks his father's still alive. We've been telling
him that so that he keeps on fighting to live. He's got to see his
old man on the chopper with him, otherwise he'll know he's dead!"
The swimmer stared at him. "Do you have any idea how risky a basket
lift is? We just can't do it for a dead guy!"
Kurson in the Shadow Divers has the Coast Guard swimmer demanding that
Chris's body be removed and Chatterton insisting that he is dead and
that he is wasting valuable time.
"Look, I'm begging you," Chatterton told the swimmer. "Leave now. The
kid's life depends on this. It's going to take twenty minutes to get
that basket back down here to load up a guy who's already dead."
Now, the Last Dive was written three years before Shadow Divers and in
the Note on Sources chapter, Kurson says he relied on interviews with
Chatterton, Kohler, Yerga and Crowell as well as reading Chowdhury's,
The Last Dive. He even mentions that he used Chowdhury's book a
second time for information on the lives of the Rouses. Every other
part of the incident is nearly exactly the same in both books.
What's up with that?
Art Greenberg
> So, I've read Bernie Chowdhury's book, The Last Dive and Robert
> Kurson's book, Shadow Divers. Both authors mention the airlifting of
> the Rouses in great detail, yet, the accounts are nearly completely
> the opposite in regard to the airlift of the Rouses by the Coast
> Guard.
> What's up with that?
What does it matter? Its a good story either way, and makes Chatterton look
like a good guy.
The real take-away from either book, as a diver, should be the lessons in how
not to approach diving in general, and serious dives in particular.
What happened to Chris and Chrissy, and Sue, and all of those close to Chris
and Chrissy, was terrible, yet avoidable. Both Chris and Chrissy had the
training, skills, and experience to pull off exploration dives successfully.
That's what makes the events of that day so tragic.
--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net
SpringDiver
wrote:
I agree and also I don't think they (Chris and Chrissy) were a good
buddy match. As far as their skills. Maybe diving, but building
equipment and certainly not their judgment. They broke rules with
regard to dive plans, gas mix requirments etc. Bernie gave me a signed
copy while he was visiting Birds in Crystal River. Nice guy.
Dennis (Icarus)
"John Hanson" <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
news:q4oh925abrf6q8gk3...@4ax.com...
> So, I've read Bernie Chowdhury's book, The Last Dive and Robert
> Kurson's book, Shadow Divers. Both authors mention the airlifting of
> the Rouses in great detail, yet, the accounts are nearly completely
> the opposite in regard to the airlift of the Rouses by the Coast
> Guard.
>
>
> Now, the Last Dive was written three years before Shadow Divers and in
> the Note on Sources chapter, Kurson says he relied on interviews with
> Chatterton, Kohler, Yerga and Crowell as well as reading Chowdhury's,
> The Last Dive. He even mentions that he used Chowdhury's book a
> second time for information on the lives of the Rouses. Every other
> part of the incident is nearly exactly the same in both books.
>
> What's up with that?
I've had the same question about that incident.
I've yet to find an answer.
Dennis
John Hanson
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:27:49 -0500, John Hanson wrote:
>> So, I've read Bernie Chowdhury's book, The Last Dive and Robert
>> Kurson's book, Shadow Divers. Both authors mention the airlifting of
>> the Rouses in great detail, yet, the accounts are nearly completely
>> the opposite in regard to the airlift of the Rouses by the Coast
>> Guard.
>[... snip ...]
>> What's up with that?
>
>What does it matter? Its a good story either way, and makes Chatterton look
>like a good guy.
Someone is lying. I find it funny how Kurson, throughout his book,
keeps referring to the fact that you can't trust history. Plus, He
mentions Chowdhury's book twice, but, he never mentions the
discrepancy in the two accounts.
>
>The real take-away from either book, as a diver, should be the lessons in how
>not to approach diving in general, and serious dives in particular.
That's true and has nothing to do with the two accounts being polar
opposites when it comes to the airlifting by the Coast Guard.
>
>What happened to Chris and Chrissy, and Sue, and all of those close to Chris
>and Chrissy, was terrible, yet avoidable. Both Chris and Chrissy had the
>training, skills, and experience to pull off exploration dives successfully.
>That's what makes the events of that day so tragic.
So why the two different accounts? Is it because Sue contacted a
lawyer? If Kurson's account is true, why did he not mention the
"error" in Chowdhury's account? Why have Chrissy Rouse's hospital
medical records disappeared? Would delaying the evacuation of Chrissy
Rouse by someone insisting that the Coast Guard also evacuate a dead
man make that person liable for Chrissy's subsequent death? Especially
if that person had medical training?
John Hanson
wrote in rec.scuba:
Not on their last dive. The problem came in when the life raft they
were trying to extricate for the sub inflated. Sure, they didn't use
trimix because they couldn't afford it but that was still very new
technology at the time for wreck divers. In fact, Kohler was still
diving on pure air only at the time. Kohler's insistence that trimix
was some sort of "voodoo gas" may have influenced the Rouses into
thinking that diving on air instead of trimix was an acceptable
option.
Art Greenberg
> So why the two different accounts? Is it because Sue contacted a lawyer?
> If Kurson's account is true, why did he not mention the "error" in
> Chowdhury's account? Why have Chrissy Rouse's hospital medical records
> disappeared? Would delaying the evacuation of Chrissy Rouse by someone
> insisting that the Coast Guard also evacuate a dead man make that person
> liable for Chrissy's subsequent death? Especially if that person had
> medical training?
Why do you care? If its all that important to you, conduct your own
investigation, and write another book.
I don't think the ultimate outcome would have been different either way.
Survival after coming straight to the surface after 30+ minutes at 240 feet
seems unlikely, even with an on-site recompression chamber.
Lee Bell
>> They broke rules with regard to dive plans, gas mix requirments etc.
> Not on their last dive. The problem came in when the life raft they
> were trying to extricate for the sub inflated. Sure, they didn't use
> trimix because they couldn't afford it but that was still very new
> technology at the time for wreck divers.
Wrong again, newbie. They not only broke the rules, they knew they were
breaking them. They died as a direct result of breaking them. Gas mix
rules are in place specifically to allow divers to deal with the unexpected
event effectively. Any fool can dive to any depth short of an Ox tox, on
air until something happens that requires them to act quickly and correctly.
They encountered just such a situation and made some very bad decisions when
they could least afford to do so.
Trimix wasn't new to the industry or to the Rouses. They were experienced
enough, including experience with trimix, to have known better. They let
their desire to do the dive override the knowledge and experience that had
to be telling them they were making a mistake. They knew how to do it right
and they chose to do it wrong. It cost them their lives.
Lee
SpringDiver
That's what I got out of the book. Do you know how much the gas would
have cost them? Was it $500. I can't remember and I don't have the
book in front of me. I think Bernie did mention it though. If I were
skilled enough to make a dive as they did, there wouldn't be anything
I couldn't afford to preserve my safety. If there was an ounce of true
to any of the accounts in Bernie's book, I have to conclude that the
Rouses' judgment was poor. This was depicted throughout the book. It
seems these guys had a death wish or something. After reading the
book, I began to think that these guys were a little crazy and folks
stood by and watched. Oh yeah, comments were made, but off they went
and did their thing. My take, but none the less a sad, sad story.
John Hanson
>John Hanson wrote
>
>>> They broke rules with regard to dive plans, gas mix requirments etc.
>
>> Not on their last dive. The problem came in when the life raft they
>> were trying to extricate for the sub inflated. Sure, they didn't use
>> trimix because they couldn't afford it but that was still very new
>> technology at the time for wreck divers.
>
>Wrong again, newbie. They not only broke the rules, they knew they were
>breaking them. They died as a direct result of breaking them. Gas mix
>rules are in place specifically to allow divers to deal with the unexpected
>event effectively. Any fool can dive to any depth short of an Ox tox, on
>air until something happens that requires them to act quickly and correctly.
>They encountered just such a situation and made some very bad decisions when
>they could least afford to do so.
You snipped this Lee:
"In fact, Kohler was still diving on pure air only at the time.
Kohler's insistence that trimix was some sort of "voodoo gas" may have
influenced the Rouses into thinking that diving on air instead of
trimix was an acceptable option."
As I mentioned before, trimix was still a new technology at the time
for wreck divers. Chatterton himself only attended a workshop on
trimix in early 1992 as did Yurga...they year the Rouses died. This
is what Shadow Divers has to say about Kohler's feelings at the time:
Kohler, however, stayed away. He, too, had heard about trimix. He
believed that if something sounded too good to be true, it was. "This
is witchcraft, it's black magic," he told Chatterton. "You're going
to 'experiment' at two hundred and thirty feet? Insid a U-boat? No
one knows the effects of that gas on the brain or the body. You're
going to get bent. Or paralyzed. Or killed." -page 195.
Then, after attending the workshop by Deans, the book says this:
When the workshop ended, Deans told Chatterton and Yurga, "If you guys
go forward, you'll be practically the only ones in your part of the
country doing it. We don't know exactly how this works in cold water.
You'll have to be pioneers." -pages 195-196.
So tell me Lee, are you saying the author and the folks in the book
are lying? Or is it you who is lying?
>
>Trimix wasn't new to the industry or to the Rouses. They were experienced
>enough, including experience with trimix, to have known better. They let
>their desire to do the dive override the knowledge and experience that had
>to be telling them they were making a mistake. They knew how to do it right
>and they chose to do it wrong. It cost them their lives.
>
So, explain the above passages.
John Hanson
wrote in rec.scuba:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:33:43 -0400, "Lee Bell"
It was $300 according to Kurson. Would one of those who stood by and
watched be Kohler? I find it interesting that you think that the
Rouses' judgment was depicted as poor throughout the book. I'm not
sure which book you are referring to but I didn't get that impression
from either. Fourteen years after the fact Kurson does believe that
there use of air is what killed him as do I. I'm sure even Kohler
would tell you that today. But, at the time, trimix hadn't been used
in cold water by wreck divers except by the Rouses themselves and
Chatterton and Yurga, according to Kurson.
Scott
> So tell me Lee, are you saying the author and the folks in the book
> are lying? Or is it you who is lying?
No one is lying, you arrogant gasbag.
You read a couple books and you think you know it all. Lee has forgotten
more about diving than you'll ever know.
The Navy has been diving helium since the 30's (do a Google search on the
Squalus).
The Rouses had the opportunity to use the gas, but like almost all
fatalities, it wasnt one thing that started the accident sequence that
resulted in a double fatality.
Arrogance like yours is one of the most dangerous, and easy to recognize and
avoid, integers of diving.
Dives with guys like you get thumbed in the parking lot.
John Hanson
wrote in rec.scuba:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:42:32 -0500, John Hanson wrote:
>> So why the two different accounts? Is it because Sue contacted a lawyer?
>> If Kurson's account is true, why did he not mention the "error" in
>> Chowdhury's account? Why have Chrissy Rouse's hospital medical records
>> disappeared? Would delaying the evacuation of Chrissy Rouse by someone
>> insisting that the Coast Guard also evacuate a dead man make that person
>> liable for Chrissy's subsequent death? Especially if that person had
>> medical training?
>
>Why do you care? If its all that important to you, conduct your own
>investigation, and write another book.
Why are you so sensitive? Perhaps I am doing my own investigation. It
is my understanding that most everyone here is an expert diver with
years of experience and could in fact know the parties involved.
>
>I don't think the ultimate outcome would have been different either way.
>Survival after coming straight to the surface after 30+ minutes at 240 feet
>seems unlikely, even with an on-site recompression chamber.
No kidding and that's not the issue. The issue is that there is a
major discrepancy in the two books about the insistence of evacuating
a dead Chris Rouse with his still alive son, Chrissy. One says
Chatterton insisted that Chris be evacuated and one says the Coast
Guard swimmer insisted that Chris be evacuated. Both over the
objections of the other.
John Hanson
<pugetso...@gmail.com> wrote in rec.scuba:
>"John Hanson" <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
>news:dbni92d8p3rbb990j...@4ax.com...
>
>> So tell me Lee, are you saying the author and the folks in the book
>> are lying? Or is it you who is lying?
>
>No one is lying, you arrogant gasbag.
So, please explain the disparity in what you snipped. You know, what
Lee said previously and what is contained in the book. I'm making it
very easy for you with my quotes.
>
>You read a couple books and you think you know it all. Lee has forgotten
>more about diving than you'll ever know.
Why do you have the impression that I think I know it all? I've said
all along that I am just a newbie to diving. As a matter of fact,
this whole post is in regard to a question I have on the veracity of
the two different accounts.
>
>The Navy has been diving helium since the 30's (do a Google search on the
>Squalus).
This wasn't the Navy and Navy dive tables, at least at the time, were
secret. Also, how do you explain the passages in Shadow Divers
regarding the use of trimix in cold water?
>
>The Rouses had the opportunity to use the gas, but like almost all
>fatalities, it wasnt one thing that started the accident sequence that
>resulted in a double fatality.
>
>Arrogance like yours is one of the most dangerous, and easy to recognize and
>avoid, integers of diving.
Please explain my arrogance and how it relates to diving?
>
>Dives with guys like you get thumbed in the parking lot.
>
How so? I certainly would dive to that depth with air. Hell, I
wouldn't dive to that depth, period.
Scott
> No kidding and that's not the issue. The issue is that there is a
> major discrepancy in the two books about the insistence of evacuating
> a dead Chris Rouse with his still alive son, Chrissy. One says
> Chatterton insisted that Chris be evacuated and one says the Coast
> Guard swimmer insisted that Chris be evacuated. Both over the
> objections of the other.
Guess you would have had to be there, and then there would be a third
version of events.
Kinda like when 5 people who witness a crime all saw what happened, but no
two stories are the same?
Al Wells
John Hanson wrote:
> No kidding and that's not the issue. The issue is that there is a
> major discrepancy in the two books about the insistence of evacuating
> a dead Chris Rouse with his still alive son, Chrissy. One says
> Chatterton insisted that Chris be evacuated and one says the Coast
> Guard swimmer insisted that Chris be evacuated. Both over the
> objections of the other.
With about 2 minutes of research you could get in touch with John
Chatterton and ask him.
Scott
> This wasn't the Navy and Navy dive tables, at least at the time, were
> secret.
Pure bullshit. I have a set of US Navy Diving manual right here from 1978,
with helium and air tables.
Volume I Air Diving Manual
Volume II Mixed Gas Diving Manual
There was also significant experimentation and exploration going on in
places outside the US Northeast.
> Also, how do you explain the passages in Shadow Divers
> regarding the use of trimix in cold water?
1st off, North East wreck divers arent exactly the leading edge, unless you
want to count fatalities and innability to learn.
The book should make that quite clear. Trimix was in common use in other
areas and nations. A lot of these macho divers looked at the use of trimix
as some kind of admission of flaw or weakness.
> >The Rouses had the opportunity to use the gas, but like almost all
> >fatalities, it wasnt one thing that started the accident sequence that
> >resulted in a double fatality.
> >
> >Arrogance like yours is one of the most dangerous, and easy to recognize
and
> >avoid, integers of diving.
>
> Please explain my arrogance and how it relates to diving?
Because you don't know shit about diving, you are drawing erroneous
conclusions, and then when people who *do* know try to tell you, you either
call them idiots or some other jockstrap bullshit.
> >Dives with guys like you get thumbed in the parking lot.
> How so?
Because you don't listen, you don't learn, and your mouth overloads your
ass. I am not going to put my life in your hands, ever, and I will never
take responsibility for any diver that displays your level of unbridled
arrogance.
> I certainly would dive to that depth with air. Hell, I
> wouldn't dive to that depth, period.
It's a piece of cake, if you know how.
Bottom line is, there is no good reason for that father and son to be dead,
it was a tragedy, and an easily avoided one.
Instead of looking to the book to learn how to do things (let alone argue
points you don't have), you should look at the book as a roadmap to a
fatality, because that is what it is.
How to kill yourself and your son in 3 easy lessons.
John Hanson
<pugetso...@gmail.com> wrote in rec.scuba:
>"John Hanson" <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
>news:rnoi92dhsig17hb4j...@4ax.com...
>
>> No kidding and that's not the issue. The issue is that there is a
>> major discrepancy in the two books about the insistence of evacuating
>> a dead Chris Rouse with his still alive son, Chrissy. One says
>> Chatterton insisted that Chris be evacuated and one says the Coast
>> Guard swimmer insisted that Chris be evacuated. Both over the
>> objections of the other.
>
>Guess you would have had to be there, and then there would be a third
>version of events.
Neither of the authors were there at the time.
>
>Kinda like when 5 people who witness a crime all saw what happened, but no
>two stories are the same?
>
But both authors interviewed the same people and Kurson in his sources
specifically mentions Chowdhury's book as being a source but yet after
he quotes both Chatteton and the swimmer, he makes no mention of the
discrepancy even though he had to absolutely know that there was one.
John Hanson
<pugetso...@gmail.com> wrote in rec.scuba:
>
>"John Hanson" <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
>news:o5pi92taghgeiiq7q...@4ax.com...
>
>> This wasn't the Navy and Navy dive tables, at least at the time, were
>> secret.
>
>Pure bullshit. I have a set of US Navy Diving manual right here from 1978,
>with helium and air tables.
>
>Volume I Air Diving Manual
>Volume II Mixed Gas Diving Manual
>
>There was also significant experimentation and exploration going on in
>places outside the US Northeast.
>
>> Also, how do you explain the passages in Shadow Divers
>> regarding the use of trimix in cold water?
>
>1st off, North East wreck divers arent exactly the leading edge, unless you
>want to count fatalities and innability to learn.
>
>The book should make that quite clear. Trimix was in common use in other
>areas and nations. A lot of these macho divers looked at the use of trimix
>as some kind of admission of flaw or weakness.
So then what you are saying is that Shadow Divers is filled with a
bunch of inaccuracies, correct? This is why I posted the question.
>
>> >The Rouses had the opportunity to use the gas, but like almost all
>> >fatalities, it wasnt one thing that started the accident sequence that
>> >resulted in a double fatality.
>> >
>> >Arrogance like yours is one of the most dangerous, and easy to recognize
>and
>> >avoid, integers of diving.
>>
>> Please explain my arrogance and how it relates to diving?
>
>Because you don't know shit about diving, you are drawing erroneous
>conclusions, and then when people who *do* know try to tell you, you either
>call them idiots or some other jockstrap bullshit.
>
>> >Dives with guys like you get thumbed in the parking lot.
>
>> How so?
>
>Because you don't listen, you don't learn, and your mouth overloads your
>ass. I am not going to put my life in your hands, ever, and I will never
>take responsibility for any diver that displays your level of unbridled
>arrogance.
Not at all. That's why I posted the question. You are apparently
agreeing with Lee. In fact, you've gone on beyond what Lee said and
have given even more information. That information is at odds with
the accounts in Shadow Divers. Now, I'm tending to side with you and
Lee at this point.
>
>> I certainly would dive to that depth with air. Hell, I
>> wouldn't dive to that depth, period.
>
>It's a piece of cake, if you know how.
I'm certain it is but it is beyond my experience and training at the
present time.
>
>Bottom line is, there is no good reason for that father and son to be dead,
>it was a tragedy, and an easily avoided one.
>
>Instead of looking to the book to learn how to do things (let alone argue
>points you don't have), you should look at the book as a roadmap to a
>fatality, because that is what it is.
>
>How to kill yourself and your son in 3 easy lessons.
>
That is exactly why I purchased them. But, I stumbled onto the one
discrepancy. Now you and Lee bring up another. A person needs to be
vigilant in obtaining accurate information. At least, I certainly try
to be.
John Hanson
in rec.scuba:
Perhaps I will. I've got to get going now though. Tonight, perhaps.
Thanks for the tip.
Scott
> So then what you are saying is that Shadow Divers is filled with a
> bunch of inaccuracies, correct? This is why I posted the question.
I dont know, havent read the book.
> Not at all. That's why I posted the question. You are apparently
> agreeing with Lee. In fact, you've gone on beyond what Lee said and
> have given even more information. That information is at odds with
> the accounts in Shadow Divers. Now, I'm tending to side with you and
> Lee at this point.
> That is exactly why I purchased them. But, I stumbled onto the one
> discrepancy. Now you and Lee bring up another. A person needs to be
> vigilant in obtaining accurate information. At least, I certainly try
> to be.
http://cisatlantic.com/trimix/ start here, read everything.
mike gray
Lee certainly isn't lying! Trimix has been around a long time
and most of the work on it and tables for it were done in the
1930's. Check out Paul Bert's book which was, I think, 1888.
The popularity of trimix took off in the late 1980s, especially
after the Sullivan Connection. By the time I took my trimix
training in 1992, it was old hat for wrecking.
Some folks are pretty slow to adopt new ideas, others demonize
proven technology, calling it "witchcraft. . .black magic"
because they are too stuck in their ways (or too lazy)to do the
research and learn the new techniques.
Ignorance is never a good excuse for diving accidents, though it
helps to sell books.
Art Greenberg
> Why are you so sensitive?
I'm not sensitive. I don't really care what really happened. I just think
you're being a bit obsessive about this. Knowing what really happened in that
detail seems pointless.
> It is my understanding that most everyone here is an expert diver with
> years of experience and could in fact know the parties involved.
I'm not an expert diver, what ever that is. And what does that have to do with
this topic?
Unfortunately, I never met Chris or Chrissy. I met Sue Rouse about a year
after the accident, but I haven't spoken with her in years. I know a few of
the divers that Chris and Chrissy dived with, and have dived with some of
them.
All of which can't even buy me a cup of coffee. But I did learn a thing or two
about diving from all of them.
> The issue is that there is a major discrepancy in the two books about the
> insistence of evacuating a dead Chris Rouse with his still alive son,
> Chrissy. One says Chatterton insisted that Chris be evacuated and one says
> the Coast Guard swimmer insisted that Chris be evacuated. Both over the
> objections of the other.
And this never happens in non-fiction books.
Call Chatterton. Ask the Coast Guard, the official reports are most likely a
matter of public record.
Lee Bell
> "In fact, Kohler was still diving on pure air only at the time.
> Kohler's insistence that trimix was some sort of "voodoo gas" may have
> influenced the Rouses into thinking that diving on air instead of
> trimix was an acceptable option."
I snipped it because it has no bearing. The Rouses were experienced trimix
divers. The did the dive on air because they didn't have the money to do it
on the gas they knew they should have been using. What Kohler, or anyone
else, was doing at the time matters little. Every diver needs to make his
or her own risk decisions. The Rouses decided unwisely.
> So tell me Lee, are you saying the author and the folks in the book
>> are lying? Or is it you who is lying?
I'm telling you exactly what I said and nothing more. The Rouses knew how
to do the dive correctly, they didn't do it that way.
Lee
Art Greenberg
> 1st off, North East wreck divers arent exactly the leading edge, unless you
> want to count fatalities and innability to learn.
A broad generalization. There are a few divers up here who stand out from that
crowd.
> The book should make that quite clear. Trimix was in common use in other
> areas and nations. A lot of these macho divers looked at the use of trimix
> as some kind of admission of flaw or weakness.
Partly, but I think the strongest factor is just being too damned cheap. I've
seen such things as spent fire extinguisher bottles used for bailout (pony)
bottles, cylinders waaay out of hydro and with obvious corrosion present, and
clothes line reels being used for guide line. Folks like that will never spend
$100-$200 for a gas fill, let alone the cost of a class in how to use it.
> Because you don't listen, you don't learn, and your mouth overloads your
> ass.
Ouch!
Scott
"Art Greenberg" <no...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:129iv44...@news.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:44:26 -0700, Scott wrote:
>
> > 1st off, North East wreck divers arent exactly the leading edge, unless
you
> > want to count fatalities and innability to learn.
>
> A broad generalization. There are a few divers up here who stand out from
that
> crowd.
Of course. I know a couple myself. But still, you get the point.
> > The book should make that quite clear. Trimix was in common use in
other
> > areas and nations. A lot of these macho divers looked at the use of
trimix
> > as some kind of admission of flaw or weakness.
>
> Partly, but I think the strongest factor is just being too damned cheap.
I've
> seen such things as spent fire extinguisher bottles used for bailout
(pony)
> bottles, cylinders waaay out of hydro and with obvious corrosion present,
and
> clothes line reels being used for guide line. Folks like that will never
spend
> $100-$200 for a gas fill, let alone the cost of a class in how to use it.
That just comes down to someone being a flat-out thief, taking advantage of
the ignorance of the divers.
A "T" of Helium and ABO can be had for a total of around $90 of todays
dollars, which would have been more than enough gas for both divers.
Whoever was dinging them for $300 to fill a set of doubles was a crook.
Grumman-581
wrote:
> Partly, but I think the strongest factor is just being too damned cheap. I've
> seen such things as spent fire extinguisher bottles used for bailout (pony)
> bottles
Depending upon the cylinder, I might not have a problem with it... One
of the heavy steel CO2 cylinders would probably be acceptable with a
different valve on it... As long as you kept your gas pressure to
within its service rating... 1800 psi, IIRC... Good enough for topping
off with O2 from a welding cylinder (which is only 2015 when full)...
Some people might prefer a smaller diameter and longer cylinder
though... Tanks are tanks... After a hydro, they're not going to know
whether they used to hold CO2, O2, or air...
Art Greenberg
> Tanks are tanks... After a hydro, they're not going to know
> whether they used to hold CO2, O2, or air...
Of course. But I doubt any of those were ever subjected to visual or hydro.
And I have to wonder about the valve fitting - I'm not sure, but I don't think
a fire extinguisher bottle has the same threads as a scuba valve.
Dennis (Icarus)
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:18:22 GMT, SpringDiver <w...@springdivers.com>
> wrote in rec.scuba:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:50:24 -0000, Art Greenberg <no...@none.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:27:49 -0500, John Hanson wrote:
> >>> So, I've read Bernie Chowdhury's book, The Last Dive and Robert
> >>> Kurson's book, Shadow Divers. Both authors mention the airlifting of
> >>> the Rouses in great detail, yet, the accounts are nearly completely
> >>> the opposite in regard to the airlift of the Rouses by the Coast
> >>> Guard.
> >>[... snip ...]
> >>> What's up with that?
> >>
> >>What does it matter? Its a good story either way, and makes Chatterton
look
> >>like a good guy.
> >>
> >>The real take-away from either book, as a diver, should be the lessons
in how
> >>not to approach diving in general, and serious dives in particular.
> >>
> >>What happened to Chris and Chrissy, and Sue, and all of those close to
Chris
> >>and Chrissy, was terrible, yet avoidable. Both Chris and Chrissy had the
> >>training, skills, and experience to pull off exploration dives
successfully.
> >>That's what makes the events of that day so tragic.
> >
> >I agree and also I don't think they (Chris and Chrissy) were a good
> >buddy match. As far as their skills. Maybe diving, but building
> >equipment and certainly not their judgment. They broke rules with
> >regard to dive plans, gas mix requirments etc. Bernie gave me a signed
> >copy while he was visiting Birds in Crystal River. Nice guy.
>
> Not on their last dive. The problem came in when the life raft they
> were trying to extricate for the sub inflated. Sure, they didn't use
You may want to read it again. They weren't tryiing to extricate the life
raft.
pg 271-273 The Last Dive.
pg 214-215 Shadow Divers
Chowdhury speculates that a raft atop the shelves mayve inflated, but both
have Chrissy Rouse digging at the bottom.
> trimix because they couldn't afford it but that was still very new
> technology at the time for wreck divers. In fact, Kohler was still
> diving on pure air only at the time. Kohler's insistence that trimix
> was some sort of "voodoo gas" may have influenced the Rouses into
> thinking that diving on air instead of trimix was an acceptable
> option.
Dennis
Grumman-581
wrote:
> Of course. But I doubt any of those were ever subjected to visual or hydro.
Well, there's no law that says that they must be subjected to a
visual... A hydro is required, but if one is filling one's own tanks,
it also might lapse...
> And I have to wonder about the valve fitting - I'm not sure, but I don't think
> a fire extinguisher bottle has the same threads as a scuba valve.
Over the years, I've seen quite a few different screw threads for
cylinders used for diving... Of course, it's also going to depend upon
the size of the tank... Looking at the Luxfer site, I see where some
of the beverage CO2, fire extinguisher, and SCUBA cylinders have the
same screw threads... I've also seen adapters made that converted old
tanks to a different thread size... I suspect that this was back in
the days when it wasn't as easy to get SCUBA tanks... I have a 20# CO2
tank... I don't see any real advantage in it instead of a SCUBA
tank... It's about 8" in diameter and about the same height as an
AL80... Maybe one of the 10# or 5# size tanks could have a use if you
got it at a cheap enough price... Maybe as a drysuit inflation
cylinder? Maybe as an O2 tank for use at a 15 ft safety stop?
Scott
news:9a2a0$44998ae8$18d64cf6$31...@KNOLOGY.NET...
> You may want to read it again. They weren't tryiing to extricate the life
> raft.
> pg 271-273 The Last Dive.
> pg 214-215 Shadow Divers
> Chowdhury speculates that a raft atop the shelves mayve inflated, but both
> have Chrissy Rouse digging at the bottom.
The only people who really know what happened aint talking.
Here is the part I don't get;
Any structure, especially one as mangled as that boat, that has been
subjected to enough violent force to not only sink it but basically rip it
to pieces is no place for a SCUBA diver, especially on air, to go. For one,
it is a war grave. For 2, the physical condition of the boat was such that
you might get away with entering it, you might not. It could collapse, old
ordinance (or in this case, allegedly, safety equipment) could function,
etc. That is what you cant control. Now compound that risk with air at that
depth, dropped bottles, removed bottles, no comms, no backups, etc. These
were all choices that were made. That same boat almost got Chatterton.
It's different for those North East Wreck guys, and they very professionally
recognize that others of us may reasonably look at them as insane. I can
tell you, for sure, that in my opinion, nothing in that blown up old boat
was worth the 3 lives it took to ID the boat.
These guys are rolling the dice, they know it, and every once in a while
someone throws a 7.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/01/60II/main811960.shtml
JOF
Scott wrote:
> Whoever was dinging them for $300 to fill a set of doubles was a crook.
I checked quickly in my copy of The Last Dive and the only reference I
see is to it costing a "few hundred" dollars more than air and that was
for two divers doing multiple dives (w/deco).
JF
John Hanson
<nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote in rec.scuba:
Yes, and if you read pages 269-270, Chowdhury says that Chrissy was
speculating there was something on the shelves that might solve the
mystery. If you read page 213 in Shadow Divers, it specifically says
that the Rouses were after a specific piece of canvas that had German
writing on it. Then, go to page 224 and you'll see that Chatterton
recognized the canvas with the writing as a life raft. So, I gave the
nod here to Kurson. Perhaps he was taking liberties. I don't know.
BTW, I have a paperback of the Last Dive and a hard cover for Shadow
Divers just for page references.
John Hanson
wrote in rec.scuba:
Well, somebody is and I don't think it's Lee.
John Hanson
wrote in rec.scuba:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:24:14 -0500, John Hanson wrote:
>> Why are you so sensitive?
>
>I'm not sensitive. I don't really care what really happened. I just think
>you're being a bit obsessive about this. Knowing what really happened in that
>detail seems pointless.
Obsessive? It appears that someone is either completely mistaken, or
someone is flat out lying. I just asked if somebody here knew which.
>
>> It is my understanding that most everyone here is an expert diver with
>> years of experience and could in fact know the parties involved.
>
>I'm not an expert diver, what ever that is. And what does that have to do with
>this topic?
I thought all you expert divers hung out together:-)
>
>Unfortunately, I never met Chris or Chrissy. I met Sue Rouse about a year
>after the accident, but I haven't spoken with her in years. I know a few of
>the divers that Chris and Chrissy dived with, and have dived with some of
>them.
Oh, so you do kinda hang out with some of them.
>
>All of which can't even buy me a cup of coffee. But I did learn a thing or two
>about diving from all of them.
>
>> The issue is that there is a major discrepancy in the two books about the
>> insistence of evacuating a dead Chris Rouse with his still alive son,
>> Chrissy. One says Chatterton insisted that Chris be evacuated and one says
>> the Coast Guard swimmer insisted that Chris be evacuated. Both over the
>> objections of the other.
>
>And this never happens in non-fiction books.
>
>Call Chatterton. Ask the Coast Guard, the official reports are most likely a
>matter of public record.
I'll email Chatterton when I get his address. I've got to drop my
tank back off at the dive store and get to the gym now.
SpringDiver
Andy Brooks
> rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetso...@gmail.com>
> rista:
>>> time, were secret.
>> Pure bullshit. I have a set of US Navy Diving manual right
>> here from 1978, with helium and air tables.
>
>
> You have to show that anyone could have obtained them back in 1978.
>
> You won't.
>
I have a copy of the 1970 US Navy Diving Manual which I bought, in
England, in 1972 or earlier (I left the UK in 1972). It contains tables
for air and for heliox. Those were the good old days, when you didn't
need a C-card and the dive shop would happily sell you regulator parts.
ab
Scott
"Andy Brooks" <andyb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:U1kmg.9383$lp....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I have a copy of the 1970 US Navy Diving Manual which I bought, in
> England, in 1972 or earlier (I left the UK in 1972). It contains tables
> for air and for heliox. Those were the good old days, when you didn't
> need a C-card and the dive shop would happily sell you regulator parts.
Please do us all a favor and dont answer or replie to Nisarel.
Google him and you'll see why.
Star
$200-$300 for 4 sets of doubles with a mix suitable for those profiles
is a tad high, even back then.
*
Scott
"JOF" <jofr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150923781....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
A T of He contains about 291 cuft of helium and costs about $75 to $90 US.
At 230 feet, they could have been running a lot of things, my choice would
have been 16/50.
Assuming LP95's, that would mean that, with a booster pump, you could just
fill 3 sets of LP95's off one T bottle.
Lee Bell
> . . . and clothes line reels being used for guide line.
Don't be too quick to discount this one. 30 years ago, we used clothes line
for cave diving for a very good reason. It had a steel wire through the
center of it. It was damned near impossible to cut or break accidentally
and not all that easy to cut on purpose.
Lee
Art Greenberg
That, I can understand. These days, braided nylon is much stronger and more
abrasion resistant, with a smaller diameter. More on the reel.
The lines I've seen up here are not that old, and not steel reinforced. And
in fully enclosed housings, impossible to clear of a jam. And, with the
non-technique employed by their users, jams do happen quite often.
John Hanson
wrote in rec.scuba:
>
>Here's Bernie's John.
I cut and pasted my original post here. Thank you.
Grumman-581
> That, I can understand. These days, braided nylon is much stronger and more
> abrasion resistant, with a smaller diameter. More on the reel.
Hell, over the years, we've used everything from parachute cord to
braided nylon mason's line (#18, I believe)... I seem to remember the
line in Ponce deLeon Springs being the yellow polypropylene stuff with
pieces of PVC pipe on it for exit markers (they had an arrow drawn on
them with a marker)... These days, #24 braided nylon line is pretty
much standard, I guess...
bob crownfield
> rec.scuba's resident pussy, "Scott" <pugetso...@gmail.com>
> whined:
>
>> Arrogance like yours is one of the most dangerous, and easy to
>> recognize and avoid,
>
> Yet you haven't managed to do it, Scotty.
down LittLe doggy, down.
stop following and ankle humping.
bad LittLe doggie carLito.
>
Matthias Voss
> You snipped this Lee:
> "In fact, Kohler was still diving on pure air only at the time.
> Kohler's insistence that trimix was some sort of "voodoo gas" may have
> influenced the Rouses into thinking that diving on air instead of
> trimix was an acceptable option."
>
> As I mentioned before, trimix was still a new technology at the time
> for wreck divers.
Only under the assumption that they are illiterate.
Whoever ever utters such statement w/o considering diving
with Heliox certainly proves that he didn't do his homework.
Heliox has been around for about eighty years then, with
well known effects of how it reduces narcosis.
Matthias
Matthias Voss
>
> It was $300 according to Kurson. Would one of those who stood by and
> watched be Kohler? I find it interesting that you think that the
> Rouses' judgment was depicted as poor throughout the book. I'm not
> sure which book you are referring to but I didn't get that impression
> from either. Fourteen years after the fact Kurson does believe that
> there use of air is what killed him as do I. I'm sure even Kohler
> would tell you that today. But, at the time, trimix hadn't been used
> in cold water by wreck divers except by the Rouses themselves and
> Chatterton and Yurga, according to Kurson.
So, if not, it is the divers responsibility to try and train
with it beforehand.
Matthias
Al Wells
Matthias Voss wrote:
> John Hanson wrote:
> > As I mentioned before, trimix was still a new technology at the time
> > for wreck divers.
>
> Only under the assumption that they are illiterate.
>
> Whoever ever utters such statement w/o considering diving
> with Heliox certainly proves that he didn't do his homework.
> Heliox has been around for about eighty years then, with
> well known effects of how it reduces narcosis.
The Rouses were also Florida cave divers, and were diving regularly
with people who were using gas for the deeper dives. I don't remember
exactly how deeply Chowdury went into this in his book, but their close
friend Steve Berman was involved with guys who were on the leading
edge.
SpringDiver
Diane and Bill Oestreich knew them as well. Bill and Diane had a
trailer on the "Ginnie Springs" property at the time that the Rouses
visited the area. In conversation with them they said they were a
couple of wild guys.
Popeye
"John Hanson" <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
news:rnoi92dhsig17hb4j...@4ax.com...
> Perhaps I am doing my own investigation.
Then get the book "The Terrible Hours" for your list, you'll find it
semi-related and very interesting.
mike gray
> rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetso...@gmail.com>
> rista:
>>>time, were secret.
>>
>>Pure bullshit. I have a set of US Navy Diving manual right
>>here from 1978, with helium and air tables.
>
>
> So they aren't secret now.
>
> You have to show that anyone could have obtained them back in 1978.
>
> You won't.
>
Ships.
Star
Art Greenberg wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:44:26 -0700, Scott wrote:
>
> > 1st off, North East wreck divers arent exactly the leading edge, unless you
> > want to count fatalities and innability to learn.
>
> A broad generalization. There are a few divers up here who stand out from that
> crowd.
>
> > The book should make that quite clear. Trimix was in common use in other
> > areas and nations. A lot of these macho divers looked at the use of trimix
> > as some kind of admission of flaw or weakness.
>
> Partly, but I think the strongest factor is just being too damned cheap. I've
> seen such things as spent fire extinguisher bottles used for bailout (pony)
> bottles, cylinders waaay out of hydro and with obvious corrosion present, and
> clothes line reels being used for guide line.
On one trip to the east coast, I was on a boat whit a diver who
obviously believed that duct tape was an appropriate substitite for
bands on his doubles, and another who liked duct tape to attach his
pony bottle to his 95. I've not seen things of that nature in other
locations.....
I've met some aweome divers from the East coast as well.
*
It is a good thing, therefore, to make short excursions now and then
to the bottom of the sea among dulse and coral, or up among the clouds
on mountaintops,
or in balloons, or even to creep like worms into dark holes and caverns
underground,
not only to learn something of what is going on in those out-of-the-way
places,
but to see better what the sun sees on our return to the common
everyday beauty.
~John Muir 1911
John Hanson
<spamma...@gmx.de> wrote in rec.scuba:
The Rouses used trimix all the time in the caves in Florida. You
missed the point but I find that happens here regularly.
John Hanson
<Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in rec.scuba:
Thanks, I will.
VK
Scott wrote:
> Any structure, especially one as mangled as that boat, that has been
> subjected to enough violent force to not only sink it but basically rip it
> to pieces is no place for a SCUBA diver, especially on air, to go. For one,
> it is a war grave. For 2, the physical condition of the boat was such that
> you might get away with entering it, you might not. It could collapse, old
> ordinance (or in this case, allegedly, safety equipment) could function,
> etc. That is what you cant control. Now compound that risk with air at that
> depth, dropped bottles, removed bottles, no comms, no backups, etc. These
> were all choices that were made. That same boat almost got Chatterton.
Not sure about this, Scott.
I reckon that all the fragile/unstable stuff has probably collapsed
anyway and after 50-odd years, the structure of the boat has attained
more or less steady state - or as stable as any non-artificial wreck
can be. Dont think they'd be any worse or less stable... although
this is just my personal experience with war wrecks, not based on any
scientific knowledge of structural integrity.
Unexploded ordinance and other stuff - that is, of course, a different
item and yeah, I agree with you.
> It's different for those North East Wreck guys, and they very professionally
> recognize that others of us may reasonably look at them as insane. I can
> tell you, for sure, that in my opinion, nothing in that blown up old boat
> was worth the 3 lives it took to ID the boat.
Possibly. But I can say that U-boats are amazing wrecks to dive.
U-853 off Providence remains the only u-boat I have spent a fair bit of
time inside and it too is a war grave. It is also possibly my favorite
dive and i'd try to get there every other weekend if I could - and
every time I've gone in there, I have been haunted by the thought of
the kids working in that tight cramped space for months, and their last
12 hours as they tried to dodge the depth charges being dropped on them
and their final moments... it is a profoundly moving experience that
goes beyond diving.
A lot of people used to go salvaging in there - the only thing I took
from it was a spanner. and only because it was more or less exposed.
Would never think of mucking around what is essentially a shrine....
and yet, I've seen skulls, ribcages, etc. moved around inside. Cannot
imagine what sort of a lowlife would do something like that. Shows a
complete lack of respect.
What the Rouses echoes deeply within me. To put it into perspective,
and at the risk of opening myself up to abuse/accusations of strokery:
I have been searching up a couple of WW2-era Maru ships in our waters,
and am getting close to finding them - last time we went looking, we
hooked onto something and I thought it was the wreck. I was literally
shaking in excitement at the thought of going into inside and seeing
what secrets they had to reveal.
So here's my connundrum: these will be deepish wrecks - 180-200 ft or
so, as per the charts and what I can gather of their location. No
trimix available here. For searching, that isnt a problem - but when I
find these ships, I have 2 choices: either just idly sit by for another
half a decade or whatever it takes till we get mix here, or go in on
air.
What do you think I'm going to do? While I have no particular desire
to become a stat (quite the opposite), and I'm going to take every
precaution possible, some risks need to be taken. I take them
knowingly, doing what I want to do.
Vandit
VK
Star wrote:
> $200-$300 for 4 sets of doubles with a mix suitable for those profiles
> is a tad high, even back then.
IIRC, filling a set of twin HP100s and 2 stages with 50 and 100 worked
out to over $100 in Boston, about 6-odd yrs ago... dunno how it has
changed since then, as I moved out 5 yrs ago.
Vandit
Lee Bell
> So here's my connundrum: these will be deepish wrecks - 180-200 ft or
> so, as per the charts and what I can gather of their location. No
> trimix available here. For searching, that isnt a problem - but when I
> find these ships, I have 2 choices: either just idly sit by for another
> half a decade or whatever it takes till we get mix here, or go in on
> air.
Not knowing all the details, there seems to be at least one more possible
choice. Make your own trimix. The process is relatively simple and well
documented. It might be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as being
dead or worse.
> What do you think I'm going to do? While I have no particular desire
> to become a stat (quite the opposite), and I'm going to take every
> precaution possible, some risks need to be taken. I take them
> knowingly, doing what I want to do.
Every precaution possible suggests you'll look further than it sounds like
you have so far.
Lee
Jerome's Sock Puppet
Carl Nisarel wrote:
> So they aren't secret now.
>
> You have to show that anyone could have obtained them back in 1978.
>
> You won't.
Classified military documents are marked as such. There is usually a
big assed "SECRET" or "CLASSIFIED" or "TOP SECRET" rubber stamp on the
top of each page, reflecting it's level of classification. It's been
that way since the 40s.
Hey Scott, what's the marking on your book? I'm gonna guess it says
"Copyright, 1972."
Jerome's Sock Puppet
Scott wrote:
> For one, it is a war grave.
That's the only one that mattered to me. I had real problems reading
through that portion of Shadow Divers. These guys were diving in
compartments where the bottom was literally covered with the bones of
the dead crew. That book went into some detail on their decision
making process to continue diving the boat, and they justified it as
an attempt to identify it, which is admirable.
But the bottom line is that they were down their to pillage the thing,
and that's not right. Or legal, for that matter. That boat, and
everything on it, is still the property of the Germans.
VK
Lee Bell wrote:
> Not knowing all the details, there seems to be at least one more possible
> choice. Make your own trimix. The process is relatively simple and well
> documented. It might be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as being
> dead or worse.
That is indeed an option. I'm going to have to buy tanks of helium,
have them shipped to over and then blend. I can probably manage that
bit - already blend nitrox using a stick, cannot imagine this would be
that different. And "approximate" gets me there for this sort of a
depth (it aint all that deep, after all).
Getting rich O2 mixes together is going to be a bit harder, but I am
trying to pick up some tips on this in a couple of months time.
> Every precaution possible suggests you'll look further than it sounds like
> you have so far.
You can bet on it, and thanks for reinforcing that one can always look
harder. Monsoons are here so the search has to be put off till
August, which gives me time to do some more digging. Getting bent - or
worse - in a place where medical care would be at minimum 24 hours away
isnt pleasant: to be honest, being paralyzed or suffering permanent
brain damage freaks me out far more.
My point was that I find it hard to condemn the actions of folks like
the Rouses. They had their limitations, they knew the risks and they
chose to take it to do something they loved. Lot worse ways to go....
We all take risks (which is why we dive) and each of us has our own
limits on how much is appropriate. I guess I simply feel hesitant in
applying my own standards of what is an appropriate level of risk to
someone else.
Happy diving (I look forward to the trip report on the O, btw. I'd
love to dive a carrier!)
Vandit
Scott
news:1150997438.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Classified military documents are marked as such. There is usually a
> big assed "SECRET" or "CLASSIFIED" or "TOP SECRET" rubber stamp on the
> top of each page, reflecting it's level of classification. It's been
> that way since the 40s.
Please stop quoting this cuntbubble, let alone answering him.
His ignorance would fill a football stadium.
> Hey Scott, what's the marking on your book? I'm gonna guess it says
> "Copyright, 1972."
You know the book, it has Rons picture in it.
Just another of the many things this douchebag has no clue of.
Scott
"VK" <vandit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150993580.3...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Not sure about this, Scott.
>
> I reckon that all the fragile/unstable stuff has probably collapsed
> anyway and after 50-odd years, the structure of the boat has attained
> more or less steady state - or as stable as any non-artificial wreck
> can be.
Subs, by design, have hulls that will take the pressure of submergence,
which also means they take a hit better than a comparable surface ship. The
outer hull may maintain a recognizeable shape longer, but that has nothing
to do with the integrity of the interior components.
> Dont think they'd be any worse or less stable... although
> this is just my personal experience with war wrecks, not based on any
> scientific knowledge of structural integrity.
This particular boat was literally blown to pieces by explosives. In order
to rip that hull apart, the forces the interior equipment were subjected to
were far more damaging than external appearances would suggest.
> Unexploded ordinance and other stuff - that is, of course, a different
> item and yeah, I agree with you.
> Possibly. But I can say that U-boats are amazing wrecks to dive.
Far out, dive them. Dont penetrate them, dont take souveniers, in my
opinion.
> U-853 off Providence remains the only u-boat I have spent a fair bit of
> time inside and it too is a war grave. It is also possibly my favorite
> dive and i'd try to get there every other weekend if I could - and
> every time I've gone in there, I have been haunted by the thought of
> the kids working in that tight cramped space for months, and their last
> 12 hours as they tried to dodge the depth charges being dropped on them
> and their final moments... it is a profoundly moving experience that
> goes beyond diving.
Which is exactly why I have would never penetrate a war grave boat.
I am sure some of the casketts buried at Arlington are interesting as well,
but I wouldnt go into one.
> A lot of people used to go salvaging in there - the only thing I took
> from it was a spanner. and only because it was more or less exposed.
> Would never think of mucking around what is essentially a shrine....
> and yet, I've seen skulls, ribcages, etc. moved around inside. Cannot
> imagine what sort of a lowlife would do something like that. Shows a
> complete lack of respect.
The kind of lowlife that is illustrated by shit like Carl Nisarel.
> What the Rouses echoes deeply within me. To put it into perspective,
> and at the risk of opening myself up to abuse/accusations of strokery:
>
> I have been searching up a couple of WW2-era Maru ships in our waters,
> and am getting close to finding them - last time we went looking, we
> hooked onto something and I thought it was the wreck. I was literally
> shaking in excitement at the thought of going into inside and seeing
> what secrets they had to reveal.
>
> So here's my connundrum: these will be deepish wrecks - 180-200 ft or
> so, as per the charts and what I can gather of their location. No
> trimix available here. For searching, that isnt a problem - but when I
> find these ships, I have 2 choices: either just idly sit by for another
> half a decade or whatever it takes till we get mix here, or go in on
> air.
Your decision completely. And if you die, we will call you a dumb ass and be
pissed, as will your family.
> What do you think I'm going to do? While I have no particular desire
> to become a stat (quite the opposite), and I'm going to take every
> precaution possible, some risks need to be taken. I take them
> knowingly, doing what I want to do.
Risks need to be recognized and attenuated, not simply taken.
Scott
As I recall, the Germans were pissed about it all as well, and rightly so.
VK
Scott wrote:
> Your decision completely. And if you die, we will call you a dumb ass and be
> pissed, as will your family.
Hehe... I wouldnt expect any less :)
> Risks need to be recognized and attenuated, not simply taken.
Agreed - but everyone has a different level of what they find
acceptable as "risk."
Vandit
Lee Bell
I can't agree with your assessment.
The bones of the dead certainly should be left alone. The vessel they were
in at the time they died, however, isn't sacred, or a grave. It's a wreck,
nothing more. As for it being property of the Germans, I don't think so.
Today's Germans aren't the ones that owned it. The Nazis did, and we don't
owe them a damned thing except, perhaps, a ride in a gas chamber.
Lee
Lee Bell
> As I recall, the Germans were pissed about it all as well, and rightly so.
The ship belonged to Nazi Germany, not the Germany of today. Unless today's
Germans chose to associate themselves with yesterday's Nazis, they have no
more claim to the vessel than anybody else.
Lee
Lee Bell
> My point was that I find it hard to condemn the actions of folks like
> the Rouses. They had their limitations, they knew the risks and they
> chose to take it to do something they loved. Lot worse ways to go....
It's a tough call. They did make their choices and they did pay the price
for them. As you suggest, that's their business. When they died, however,
they affected the world's perception of divers as a group and that's
everybody's business.
> We all take risks (which is why we dive) and each of us has our own
> limits on how much is appropriate. I guess I simply feel hesitant in
> applying my own standards of what is an appropriate level of risk to
> someone else.
Good point. On the other hand, this one is easy to judge. The results
speak for themselves.
> Happy diving (I look forward to the trip report on the O, btw. I'd
> love to dive a carrier!)
So come on over. It's not Monsoon season here.
Lee
Lee Bell
> Which is exactly why I have would never penetrate a war grave boat.
>
> I am sure some of the casketts buried at Arlington are interesting as
> well,
> but I wouldnt go into one.
Neither would I, but casketts are purchased specifically for the purpose of
storing the mortal remains of dead people. Ships are not.
Lee
"Magilla"
"Scott" wrote
>> >Dives with guys like you get thumbed in the parking lot.
>
>> How so?
>
> Because you don't listen, you don't learn, and your mouth overloads your
> ass. I am not going to put my life in your hands, ever, and I will never
> take responsibility for any diver that displays your level of unbridled
> arrogance.
I actually disagree. Maybe I read too much into some of his comments,
the ones not replied to.
And in some ways he fits right in.
To the extent that if it's within my personal schedule, and the dives
are reasonable, I'll meet and dive the boat he does.
John, the email addy is real, just remove the $$, like diving does.
Curtis
Popeye
"Lee Bell" <plee...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HXEmg.5093$w84....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Spoils of war.
No different than walking through a grave yard, anyway.
There's dead folks virtually everywhere.
bob crownfield
> bob crownfield <crown...@verizon.net> goes around:
>
>> following and ankle humping.
poof.
thats the last of you.
in the words of the master,
vanish wee one.
farewell leg humper.
"Magilla"
"bob crownfield" wrote
> poof.
>
> thats the last of you.
>
> in the words of the master,
>
> vanish wee one.
>
> farewell leg humper.
and it's about time Bob.
Curtis
Scott
""Magilla"" <cavey_curtis@$$ yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49Gmg.51343$mF2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I actually disagree. Maybe I read too much into some of his comments,
> the ones not replied to.
You are a free man, and your disagreement is welcome.
> And in some ways he fits right in.
In very few.
> To the extent that if it's within my personal schedule, and the dives
> are reasonable, I'll meet and dive the boat he does.
That's not the same as being his buddy.
Scott
"Popeye" <Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
news:129mflo...@news.supernews.com...
> Spoils of war.
>
> No different than walking through a grave yard, anyway.
>
> There's dead folks virtually everywhere.
In a graveyard, most people show enough common sense and respect to stay on
the isles and not tread across the graves, let alone move the bones around.
Scott
It comes down to Chivalry.
You either honor the war dead, or you do not. You either honor the graves or
you do not.
Not every kid that died under Hitler was a Nazi.
You can do what you want, I would never enter a war grave underwater or
above.
Scott
> I can't agree with your assessment.
>
> The bones of the dead certainly should be left alone. The vessel they
were
> in at the time they died, however, isn't sacred, or a grave. It's a
wreck,
> nothing more. As for it being property of the Germans, I don't think so.
> Today's Germans aren't the ones that owned it. The Nazis did, and we
don't
> owe them a damned thing except, perhaps, a ride in a gas chamber.
Then dont get upset when one of ours is defiled.
Lee Bell
> That's not the same as being his buddy.
Which is what he'll have to be. I won't knowingly get on the boat with
John. Newbies are fine. Newbies that believe they already know it all
aren't.
Lee Bell
> You either honor the war dead, or you do not. You either honor the graves
> or
> you do not.
I said nothing about dishonoring the dead. As far as I'm concerned, the
wrecks are not graves.
Lee
Lee Bell
> Then dont get upset when one of ours is defiled.
Diving on a wreck where some of our military or civilians dies is not, in my
opinion, defiling anything.
Lee
Popeye
"Scott" <pugetso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tcSdnVrgD7bv1wbZ...@wavecable.com...
Different cultures, different practices.
I'll grant you that, but don't we walk around the Little Big Horn?
Gettysburg?
Normandy Beach?
There's hardly a shipwreck off North Carolina (7000) that doesn't have -1-
dead guy in it, do we skip them all?
Truk Lagoon?
I see the point, but, I think that there has to be some moderation.
--
Popeye
"If one does as God does enough times, one
will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector.
Scott
Which was my point.
Popeye
"Scott" <pugetso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:R9idnakCOfdG1wbZ...@wavecable.com...
I'd give my left nut to dive the Arizona.
I don't think it would be disrespectful, it would be the ultimate act of
pride for me.
Just different views.
I highly doubt I'd, like, want to go in and see the lower decks where the
guys didn't make it out.
Scott
Lee, I love you, would take a bullet for you.
You and I disagree on this matter.
I'm OK with that.
Lee Bell
> In a graveyard, most people show enough common sense and respect to stay
> on
> the isles and not tread across the graves, let alone move the bones
> around.
Different issue. There's no excuse for disturbing the remains of the war
dead except if the family wants to make different arrangements.
Scott
When they start taking souveniers, and moving bones around to get to the
"goodies", we part ways.
Scott
"Popeye" <Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
> Different cultures, different practices.
>
> I'll grant you that, but don't we walk around the Little Big Horn?
On marked trails, and there are certain areas that are fenced and chained
off.
> Gettysburg?
>
> Normandy Beach?
>
> There's hardly a shipwreck off North Carolina (7000) that doesn't
have -1-
> dead guy in it, do we skip them all?
>
> Truk Lagoon?
>
> I see the point, but, I think that there has to be some moderation.
I agree.
As I said, I wont ever penetrate a war grave, which means a sunken vessel
where unrecovered reamains lie, or knowingly stroll across a grave on land.
And that means any grave.
Well, there might be a few I'd piss on....
Scott
"Popeye" <Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
> I'd give my left nut to dive the Arizona.
Outside, yes.
> I don't think it would be disrespectful, it would be the ultimate act of
> pride for me.
>
> Just different views.
>
> I highly doubt I'd, like, want to go in and see the lower decks where
the
> guys didn't make it out.
My point succinctly.
Let alone scab geedunk.
Lee Bell
> Lee, I love you, would take a bullet for you.
I'd rather your or I forced someone else to do it.
> You and I disagree on this matter.
> I'm OK with that.
Personally, I think we agree on the essential point, respect for the dead.
We only disagree on the respect due to the ship they died in.
I'm also OK with that.
Lee
John Hanson
<jerome...@gmail.com> wrote in rec.scuba:
>
>Scott wrote:
>> For one, it is a war grave.
>
>That's the only one that mattered to me. I had real problems reading
>through that portion of Shadow Divers. These guys were diving in
>compartments where the bottom was literally covered with the bones of
>the dead crew. That book went into some detail on their decision
>making process to continue diving the boat, and they justified it as
>an attempt to identify it, which is admirable.
Well, I wouldn't have a problem diving one. I thought the book was
rather patronizing when it came to their decision making process. The
fact of the matter is that many a soldier, sailor or civilian have
been interred in mass graves, or even worse. I would certainly pay my
respects to them but I would not refrain from entering their ship.
Hell, if it had been a tank, there would be a crusty old sergeant
ripping their remains out of it and cussing the whole time (I had an
uncle (by marriage) who's job was just that in WWII under Patton. God
rest your soul, Donald.).
I like to put myself in other people's shoes when I pass judgment (I
guess I'm not very Christian). If I were in a sub and was sunk, it
wouldn't bother me in the least if some diver swam through the hulk.
If that diver could identify the wreck and let my family know where I
rested, I would be extremely grateful. Just look at how much it meant
for the kin of the sailors on the Fitz to be able to remove the bell
and place a wreath on the wreck during their memorial service after it
had been located. They're a little touchy about folks diving on it
now but that's another story.
>
>But the bottom line is that they were down their to pillage the thing,
>and that's not right. Or legal, for that matter. That boat, and
>everything on it, is still the property of the Germans.
I didn't get that from either account. Nobody was their to pillage
the wreck, just to identify it.