Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Poodlebrain

How can you equate the size of a shipwreck witht the size of an anchor? Use your brain.....


706 posted on 12/08/2004 10:32:29 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies ]


To: Sacajaweau

He isnt equating an anchor with a shipwreck. Someone on here said that Sonar couldnt locate material under silt, which is untrue. He stated a fact. And yes, sonar has located anchors.


708 posted on 12/08/2004 10:57:14 AM PST by theconservativerepublican (www.theconservativerepublican.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies ]

To: Sacajaweau
In the first place one has to consider the target search area relative to the size of the target. The search in the Peterson case has already been localized so we are talking about a search for smaller objects in a smaller area than is usually the case with shipwrecks. The precision of the search can be increased due to the limited scope.

In the case of wooden ships sunk centuries ago there is often little or no organic material, wood, remaining after decomposition and micro-organisms feeding off of them. The wrecks are located because of non-organic materials such as anchors, ballast stones, pottery jars used to store food and water and metallic objects left behind. These items are much smaller than the ships themselves, yet they are found.

Is that adequate brain work to answer your question?
709 posted on 12/08/2004 11:00:38 AM PST by Poodlebrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson