5 ms·

The wreck is covered with pebbles at great cost to prevent anyone diving on the wreck to investigate what happened. Then no one can prove anything and everythin

The wreck is covered with pebbles at great cost to prevent anyone diving on the wreck to investigate what happened. Then no one can prove anything and everything remains just speculation. Ban any diving, threaten anyone diving the wreck with arrest and then just completely ignore the relatives' calls for an independent investigation. Then in this information vacuum ordinary people do the rest by alleging anyone who questions the official line is a "conspiracy theorist". I mean science can answer so many questions, but only when you have trace evidence to examine.

Crito 12y ago
The Edmund Fitzgerald (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald) has a similar diving ban, although in that case the family members of the victims support it.
codezero 12y ago
I saw the thing about the conspiracy theory, but is this effort partly because of the depth of the debris? It seems like lots of ships have sunk, and not many of them have been covered in pebbles or had a diving ban.
m_eiman 12y ago
There have been investigations and video inspection of the wreck. "Everyone" agrees that the official explanation is correct. The reason for covering the wreck is that the disaster was a major national catastrophe; if 800+ hadn't died it would never have been considered. Says Wikipedia: "In the aftermath of the disaster, many relatives of the deceased demanded that their loved ones be raised from international waters and given a land burial. Demands were also made that the entire ship be raised so that the cause of the disaster could be discovered by detailed inspection.[27][28] Citing the practical difficulties and the moral implications of raising decaying bodies from the sea floor (the majority of the bodies were never recovered), and fearing financial burden of lifting the entire hull to the surface and the salvage operation, the Swedish government suggested burying the whole ship in situ with a shell of concrete.[29][30] As a preliminary step, thousands of tons of pebbles were dropped on the site.[28] The Estonia Agreement 1995, a treaty among Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Denmark, Russia and the United Kingdom, declared sanctity over the site, prohibiting their citizens from even approaching the wreck.[31]"
- codezero 12y ago
  I still don't understand why it was burried just because it was a tragedy. Was there some practical concern that bodies might slowly creep out of the wreck onto the surface or that people would loot it?
  - kzrdude 12y ago
    It's lying at 50-70 metres deep. If it is not recovered, the "grave" is open so to speech for curious divers, and that was very much not desired. Either recover it or bury it. The Titanic was different; it lies below 4000 metres of water.
    - codezero 12y ago
      I see so it's mainly because the depth made it so accessible. Thanks. That makes sense.
tomjen3 12y ago
To me that is actually a really, really good argument for the conspiracy theory - why go to such lengths to cover it up, if there is nothing to hide?
- alan_cx 12y ago
  Hiding something does not equal a conspiracy theory. I mean, do you believe that behind every door there is a conspiracy? Do clothes equal a conspiracy to hide the human body? Is covering a seed with soil a conspiracy to hide seeds? If you think yes, than please tell us what you think a conspiracy is. Or are people just trying to protect property, keep warm and grow plants? Maybe they are conspiring to protect property with carpenters? In this case, I think its reasonable to thing that covering up the ship and bodies are to protect dignity.
  - retrogradeorbit 12y ago
    Hiding something does not equal a conspiracy theory. But it also doesn't refute it either. It cannot be used to comment on it at all. Your clothes analogy is a straw man. People conspire all the time. There are many, many instances of people conspiring. There are many instances of conspiracy theories thought to be rubbish that turned out to be true. Watergate, anyone? Or more recently, if you had suggested that the NSA had tapped every major network in the world and created viruses that burrow down into the chips themselves and so on, you'd have been called a conspiracy theorist. Then came Edward Snowden. Yes, covering with pebbles doesn't provide any evidence for a conspiracy theory. But equally your argument provides no refutation that it's a conspiracy. Science however can offer concrete facts. For example: laboratory tests on debris recovered illegally from Estonia's bow yielded trace evidence of an explosion. So how do you review that? By performing independent tests on other salvaged material. Which could be quite simple to do, if it wasn't covered in stones. Just think, if it wasn't covered in stones, you could recover some of the wreck, test it and show that there is no trace evidence of any explosions. Now that we only have that trace evidence, I suppose we just have to be content with the idea that it was sunk with an explosion. Unless you have some kind of evidence that refutes it? You may think the reverse, that this evidence cant be trusted, and that the official line should be trusted. But you would be wrong. That is unscientific. You would have to prove that the work done by Jutta Rabe is false by doing your own lab work and making your own observations. Interesting how the pebbles stop all further investigation, isn't it? But I know, I know. Governments would never do that. They are so trustworthy. They never lie. etc. etc. Good luck with your understanding of geopolitics, clothes and carpentry...
kryptiskt 12y ago
It's because it's a site for a major tragedy for several countries and we are not keen to have Americans coming and digging for souvenirs there. Because you are dumb like that.
- codezero 12y ago
  Sorry. This comments seems inappropriate there are lots of shipwrecks that aren't burried and I don't think there is a reason to say Americans are dumb and want to loot tragic shipwrecks.

Crito 12y ago

The Edmund Fitzgerald (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald) has a similar diving ban, although in that case the family members of the victims support it.

codezero 12y ago

I saw the thing about the conspiracy theory, but is this effort partly because of the depth of the debris? It seems like lots of ships have sunk, and not many of them have been covered in pebbles or had a diving ban.

m_eiman 12y ago

There have been investigations and video inspection of the wreck. "Everyone" agrees that the official explanation is correct. The reason for covering the wreck is that the disaster was a major national catastrophe; if 800+ hadn't died it would never have been considered. Says Wikipedia: "In the aftermath of the disaster, many relatives of the deceased demanded that their loved ones be raised from international waters and given a land burial. Demands were also made that the entire ship be raised so that the cause of the disaster could be discovered by detailed inspection.[27][28] Citing the practical difficulties and the moral implications of raising decaying bodies from the sea floor (the majority of the bodies were never recovered), and fearing financial burden of lifting the entire hull to the surface and the salvage operation, the Swedish government suggested burying the whole ship in situ with a shell of concrete.[29][30] As a preliminary step, thousands of tons of pebbles were dropped on the site.[28] The Estonia Agreement 1995, a treaty among Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Denmark, Russia and the United Kingdom, declared sanctity over the site, prohibiting their citizens from even approaching the wreck.[31]"

codezero 12y ago
I still don't understand why it was burried just because it was a tragedy. Was there some practical concern that bodies might slowly creep out of the wreck onto the surface or that people would loot it?
- kzrdude 12y ago
  It's lying at 50-70 metres deep. If it is not recovered, the "grave" is open so to speech for curious divers, and that was very much not desired. Either recover it or bury it. The Titanic was different; it lies below 4000 metres of water.
  - codezero 12y ago
    I see so it's mainly because the depth made it so accessible. Thanks. That makes sense.

tomjen3 12y ago

To me that is actually a really, really good argument for the conspiracy theory - why go to such lengths to cover it up, if there is nothing to hide?

alan_cx 12y ago
Hiding something does not equal a conspiracy theory. I mean, do you believe that behind every door there is a conspiracy? Do clothes equal a conspiracy to hide the human body? Is covering a seed with soil a conspiracy to hide seeds? If you think yes, than please tell us what you think a conspiracy is. Or are people just trying to protect property, keep warm and grow plants? Maybe they are conspiring to protect property with carpenters? In this case, I think its reasonable to thing that covering up the ship and bodies are to protect dignity.
- retrogradeorbit 12y ago
  Hiding something does not equal a conspiracy theory. But it also doesn't refute it either. It cannot be used to comment on it at all. Your clothes analogy is a straw man. People conspire all the time. There are many, many instances of people conspiring. There are many instances of conspiracy theories thought to be rubbish that turned out to be true. Watergate, anyone? Or more recently, if you had suggested that the NSA had tapped every major network in the world and created viruses that burrow down into the chips themselves and so on, you'd have been called a conspiracy theorist. Then came Edward Snowden. Yes, covering with pebbles doesn't provide any evidence for a conspiracy theory. But equally your argument provides no refutation that it's a conspiracy. Science however can offer concrete facts. For example: laboratory tests on debris recovered illegally from Estonia's bow yielded trace evidence of an explosion. So how do you review that? By performing independent tests on other salvaged material. Which could be quite simple to do, if it wasn't covered in stones. Just think, if it wasn't covered in stones, you could recover some of the wreck, test it and show that there is no trace evidence of any explosions. Now that we only have that trace evidence, I suppose we just have to be content with the idea that it was sunk with an explosion. Unless you have some kind of evidence that refutes it? You may think the reverse, that this evidence cant be trusted, and that the official line should be trusted. But you would be wrong. That is unscientific. You would have to prove that the work done by Jutta Rabe is false by doing your own lab work and making your own observations. Interesting how the pebbles stop all further investigation, isn't it? But I know, I know. Governments would never do that. They are so trustworthy. They never lie. etc. etc. Good luck with your understanding of geopolitics, clothes and carpentry...

kryptiskt 12y ago

It's because it's a site for a major tragedy for several countries and we are not keen to have Americans coming and digging for souvenirs there. Because you are dumb like that.

codezero 12y ago
Sorry. This comments seems inappropriate there are lots of shipwrecks that aren't burried and I don't think there is a reason to say Americans are dumb and want to loot tragic shipwrecks.