Titanic news
 

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:47:28 -0400, "Gregory Hall"
wrote:

That just proves my point. 200 miles east of New Hampshire is way too far
from 1000 miles east of Boston. The Navy isn't so stupid that they're gonna
be looking for the Thresher 800 miles east of where it sank.

They knew where it was all along, give or take a mile or so.

Casady

Titanic news
 

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:02:58 -0400, "Gregory Hall"
wrote:

They're full of ****! Everybody whose got even a wee bit of his memory left
knows full well that the Thresher was lost off of New England in the Gulf
Stream. Why would they be looking for it up by the arctic circle?

Look for it? They knew right where it was from the git go, There was a
ship on the surface when it went crunch. They may have had to search a
square mile or so.

Casady

Titanic news
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:13:12 -0400, said:

I saw on GMA this morning that the hunt for Tiatanic was a cover up
for a hunt for the USS Thrasher. It was all a NAVY funded secret
mission with a Titanic cover-up.

Also that Rivet chick was on the Colbert Report. Eye candy compared to
that Roger fellow ;)

Fred

There can be no doubt that the search for the Tiatanic was really
cover for a search for the USS Thrasher!

Please, guys. Get the name of the sub right. It was "Thresher," not
"Thrasher." The ship I served on accompanied Thesher during the test dive
in
which it was lost. That was about 5 years before I joined the ship.


Careful... Larry is going to claim you're part of the vast network of
conspiracies... I mean your name is Dave and you saw the movie by the same
name, right?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Titanic news
 

On Jun 2, 12:48*pm, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:12:14 GMT, (Richard
Casady) said:

Look for it? They knew right where it was from the git go, There was a
ship on the surface when it went crunch. They may have had to search a
square mile or so.

That was my initial reaction, too. But then I realized that what was meant
was that they wanted not just to locate the wreckage, but to see and inspect
the wreckage itself--you don't just drop a diver in the water and send him
down to 8,000 feet.

What? According to Diver Bob he could do it with a snorkle.

Fred

Titanic news
 

On Jun 2, 9:54*am, wrote:

What? According to Diver Bob he could do it with a snorkle.
Fred

Well actually fred I was freeediving yester day. had my papya for
breakfast, hitched a ride to a nice lagoon down the road and flippered
the day a way. Just down to ~40-45' Sorry no SUR D O2 this time.
Nice views though.

Uhh, what did you do yesterday, sit on your fat ass typing me love
letters and dreaming about sucking my short arm?

Bob

Titanic news
 

On Jun 2, 2:32*pm, Bob wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:54*am, wrote:

What? According to Diver Bob he could do it with a snorkle.
Fred

Well actually fred I was freeediving yester day. had my papya for
breakfast, hitched a ride to a nice lagoon down the road and flippered
the day a way. Just down to ~40-45' *Sorry no SUR D O2 *this time.
Nice views though.

Uhh, what did you do yesterday, sit on your fat ass typing me love
letters and dreaming about sucking my short arm?

Bob

Shrimp & Ribeyes on the barby.
Won a dink race with the new rib.
Helped install a flo-sur system on a friends yacht, he has twin Iveco
Vector V-8s and wants to know how much fuel he's burning.
I figured about 2500 dollars an hour on plane :)
Speared a huge flounder next to the reef at 60 ft, free diving of
course, no fins.

Fred