If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Archaeologists identify 67-year old shipwreck off FL's coast. 67 years old? Well then, honestly not so much "Archae"-ologists as "Recent"-ologists then, aren't they   (foxnews.com) divider line 13
    More: Interesting, shipwrecks, archaeologists, The Florida Times-Union, Ponte Vedra Beach  
•       •       •

1256 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Apr 2014 at 4:09 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



13 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-01 04:27:08 PM
Bet they thought it was flight 370
 
2014-04-01 04:27:37 PM
Wrecked in 1947.  Just a few years previously, ports and communities along Florida's Atlantic coast were conducting black-outs to prevent prowling German submarines from easily spotting American shipping targets, in profile.

This skipper didn't have that as a concern.  Still, it's cool how they found his boat after he farked up.
 
2014-04-01 04:40:12 PM
It belongs in a tourism welcome center!
 
2014-04-01 05:43:17 PM
The part that confuses me; is at the end of the article (Yeah; I RTFA); it states that the "next step" is to determine the age of the ship.

If they're sure they'e identified it already; shouldn't they already KNOW how old it is? Or at least be able to reasonably quickly find that out?  Ship Y sank in a given year; at the time it was owned by Company B; before which it was owned by Company A which commissioned it's manufacture at Shipyard X in year ZZZZ.

Also; it states that they only checked records dating from the mid 1800's to the 1970's in order to determine the identity; but why stop at the 1970's specifically?  I can understand not going older; as records might not exist or be accurate; nevermind the fact that there might be something obvious about the wreck itself that says it's not older (Eg they found tech that didn't exist before 18XX) but nothing says a an old style ship couldn't be in use long after it's been made obsolete.

Then again the article is coming from Fox News so why should I expect any sort of clarity or actual reporting.

/The same is true with most news outlets honestly regardless of political leanings
 
2014-04-01 05:44:02 PM

Shan: If they're sure they've identified it already;


FTFM
 
2014-04-01 06:25:43 PM
You may want to call your "gyne" for your weekly silica rinse.
 
2014-04-01 06:36:31 PM

Shan: The part that confuses me; is at the end of the article (Yeah; I RTFA); it states that the "next step" is to determine the age of the ship.

If they're sure they'e identified it already; shouldn't they already KNOW how old it is? Or at least be able to reasonably quickly find that out?  Ship Y sank in a given year; at the time it was owned by Company B; before which it was owned by Company A which commissioned it's manufacture at Shipyard X in year ZZZZ.

Also; it states that they only checked records dating from the mid 1800's to the 1970's in order to determine the identity; but why stop at the 1970's specifically?  I can understand not going older; as records might not exist or be accurate; nevermind the fact that there might be something obvious about the wreck itself that says it's not older (Eg they found tech that didn't exist before 18XX) but nothing says a an old style ship couldn't be in use long after it's been made obsolete.

Then again the article is coming from Fox News so why should I expect any sort of clarity or actual reporting.

/The same is true with most news outlets honestly regardless of political leanings


There are a lot of reasons you can exclude or create a time window.  Also ships don't last forever, generally they have a finite life.  Old ships can not and do not sail for ever in general use, unless they are a Greek Tramp steamer, which is not the case here.  As for records, depending on the size and where it was registered out of, this can be hit or miss.  Also insurance records, if it was insured can be hit or miss.  Construction details can narrow down an age and newspaper reports are the easiest thing to track down first. They are also probably just doing a survey of what is visible, not an excavation, so many details are hidden.
 
2014-04-01 06:55:27 PM
ACHaeologists ? Those people who study electronic check cashing?
 
2014-04-01 08:48:41 PM
67 isn't even old by Floridian standards.
 
2014-04-01 08:57:39 PM
I bet it was Hitler's diveboat.
 
2014-04-01 10:01:22 PM
Was it good ship and true?
 
2014-04-02 12:15:13 AM
Cenologists?
 
2014-04-02 05:40:24 AM
Surely not, no! No one was ALIVE THEN!
/izzard
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report