06-12-2025, 09:29 PM
I was wondering what your opinion is on the Oceangate submersible implosion.
I didn't watch the Coast Guard hearings when they happened but I have begun listening to them now and realized something that I hadn't considered before.
The people onboard [I mean all of them not just those on board when it imploded] signed some kind of release that did have language regarding the danger, death and injury possibilities when riding in the sub.
BUT there was information omitted, right? I mean I have done an activity that required such a waiver before and let's just say something somewhat risky like bungee jumping. I would think that if I am signing a release from liability that there are no absolutely unavoidable failure points.
If hypothetically the bungee jump company didn't tell me that the cord broke after the last person jumped and we tied it back together, instead saying nothing and allowing me to jump then the cord breaks and I die, can anybody really say "well, she signed a waiver"? When a logical person would not be thinking that something that basic, like a very basic piece of safety information like that would be omitted or ignored?
Does the omission of this key information about the probable condition of the hull invalidate these waivers?
He knew hull 1 cracked. He knew he didn't have the number of dives he was claiming on hull 2. He knew about the sound at the end of dive 80 and I don't believe he was a stupid man. He knew it would eventually fail and even said something like they didn't know if it will fail after one dive or ten or 100.
Oceangate as a company was not generating a profit from what I can see and the testimony of the bookkeeper in the USCG hearings said as much. She said if they couldn't make payroll Stockton would write a check.
I just wonder about the psychology behind this. I read a lot online and people are saying well he was an arrogant narcissist but I think it's something else and what that is I don't know.
Was he secretly depressed, watching his big dream slowly fall apart? He knew the outcome when the big popping sound happened in hull 1. A big crack in the hull requiring the entire thing to be remade. It seems like the same thing happened on hull 2 on dive 80, his monitoring software showed that and yet he continued on. Taking people down to depths who I can bet he didn't tell about this and the history of the hull. Did he think this was a suicide mission I don't think that because why would he take the other people with him?
How would he have reacted had he not been on the sub when it imploded? Where would he assign the blame?
I didn't watch the Coast Guard hearings when they happened but I have begun listening to them now and realized something that I hadn't considered before.
The people onboard [I mean all of them not just those on board when it imploded] signed some kind of release that did have language regarding the danger, death and injury possibilities when riding in the sub.
BUT there was information omitted, right? I mean I have done an activity that required such a waiver before and let's just say something somewhat risky like bungee jumping. I would think that if I am signing a release from liability that there are no absolutely unavoidable failure points.
If hypothetically the bungee jump company didn't tell me that the cord broke after the last person jumped and we tied it back together, instead saying nothing and allowing me to jump then the cord breaks and I die, can anybody really say "well, she signed a waiver"? When a logical person would not be thinking that something that basic, like a very basic piece of safety information like that would be omitted or ignored?
Does the omission of this key information about the probable condition of the hull invalidate these waivers?
He knew hull 1 cracked. He knew he didn't have the number of dives he was claiming on hull 2. He knew about the sound at the end of dive 80 and I don't believe he was a stupid man. He knew it would eventually fail and even said something like they didn't know if it will fail after one dive or ten or 100.
Oceangate as a company was not generating a profit from what I can see and the testimony of the bookkeeper in the USCG hearings said as much. She said if they couldn't make payroll Stockton would write a check.
I just wonder about the psychology behind this. I read a lot online and people are saying well he was an arrogant narcissist but I think it's something else and what that is I don't know.
Was he secretly depressed, watching his big dream slowly fall apart? He knew the outcome when the big popping sound happened in hull 1. A big crack in the hull requiring the entire thing to be remade. It seems like the same thing happened on hull 2 on dive 80, his monitoring software showed that and yet he continued on. Taking people down to depths who I can bet he didn't tell about this and the history of the hull. Did he think this was a suicide mission I don't think that because why would he take the other people with him?
How would he have reacted had he not been on the sub when it imploded? Where would he assign the blame?
