Alternate traces of bodies on the seafloor besides boots and shoes

Lee Gilliland

Feb 14, 2003
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this, but as Philcon was just before Christmas, I'm sure you understand - The tureen under discussion (and by the way the organic remains were from a lamb) was found in an anoxic bed a few inches deep but quite wide,90 to 200 feet. One of the things Charlie's studying is why the bed is there - the main problem in such research being that they are going no where near that bed again as he believes there will - no question - be some human remains somewhere, and he doesn't want to be the one to bring them up. We had a marvelous time, btw - kinda sorry no one from ET could join us, Charlie made a simply wonderful docent - knew all of the artifacts on sight, and could recite when and where they were found and their entire history.
Jun 10, 1999

Yes and too forgive my delay in responding to many of my posts. Ever since the North NV weather went from 5 degree to 61 degree (practically overnight!) our business has *feasted* ;-)

Anyhow, I as an individual seek out the beneficial information of any particular subject book. Wheras some choose to pick them to pieces! As in the case of "Ghosts of the Titanic", an area of the wreck which I had seen previouslly in video, and which left me dumbfounded where upon it's location was very much disclosed on pg. 28 of "Ghosts". The bakery and pantry compartments.

BTW, the video footage of my aforemention can be seen in the closing segments of "Death of a Dream" (A&E). A brief clip of NAUTILE's r.o.v. ROBIN ascending into the area...all the while Paul Henri Nargeolet narrates..."Everytime we go back to the wreck, we pay homage to the victims of this tragedy".

Even the self-proclaimed wreck *experts* failed to help.

Michael Cundiff
Jun 12, 2004
>>Photos are interesting but don't always tell the whole story.<<

Neither do Forensic analyses. Despite what you want to believe, Michael, scientific analyses do not have a scope wide enough to cover every contingency.

When it comes to pictures, though, there are two sayings in support of their importance as use as evidence: (1) A Picture is worth a thousand words, and (2) Pictures don't lie.

Likewise, scientific analyses do not take in to account several significant factors of a story, such as the human factor. Nor can science stand the test of verifying cases of 'contradictory-but-true,' since science is based on rational evaluation. Many things happen a certain way, without any logical explanation. Science, therefore is limited in it's capabilities as well.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 9, 2000
Easley South Carolina
>>(1) A Picture is worth a thousand words, and (2) Pictures don't lie.<<

As a matter of fact, pictures can and do lie. Depending on such things as context and/or how it's all manipulated....sometimes with Photoshop®, and sometimes by what's intentionally left out of the frame.

>>Nor can science stand the test of verifying cases of 'contradictory-but-true,'<<

Such as what? This sounds like rheotorical misdirection to me.

>>since science is based on rational evaluation.<<

Yes it is. And now for the whole of the story. What science is based on is an evalution and testing of evidence aquired by actual observation, and scientific methodolgy has mechenisms in it for correcting mistakes, updating and revising information and exposing frauds. (It wasn't the clergy or religious fundementalists who exposed the Piltdown Man Hoax, it was a scientist!) I don't know that anybody is saying that science is somehow flawless in it's approach. I certainly don't hear any bona fide scientists saying that (Though a lot of charlatans. fakes and frauds will make that claim.) What science in effect says is the following:

a)This is what we've actually observed going on.
b)This is how we think it works.(Hypothosis)
c)This is how we tested it (Experimentation)
d)This is what that experimental data indicates best explains the phenomenon observed.(Which BTW, is the core difference between hypothosis and theory. Theory is tested hypothosis is not.)

Until somebody comes along with a better system for explaining and quantifying the natural world, I'll stick with it.
Jun 10, 1999

Picture don't lie?

Oh really...try and tell that to the skeptics, who indeed were correct in there conclusion of the all too infamous "Nessie" photograph.

In fact the perpetuateors of the *scheme* later admitted to their guilt?

Therefore,in concluding... is the picture a lie, or are the photographers liars? I can only surmize one in the same!

Michael A. Cundiff

Similar threads

Similar threads