uwxplorer
Contributor
Can you sum up both for those of us who haven't watched either?
The Third Dive: The Death of Rob Stewart
- Thread starter BazzaB
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Roger Hobden
Contributor
The summary suggestion is a great one.
I suspect that most of us on ScubaBoard have only a very sketchy idea of the various challenges and of the chain of bad decisions that led to this sad outcome. I also find that the Ad Hominem attacks are not at all useful, quite the contrary.
The OP was initially to simply let us know about this documentary, but the thread has now unfortunately degenerated into a train wreck.
The kind of input that I believe might be helpful to most of us, would be to have a kind of summary of the following aspects:
What facts within the documentary are either accurate and precise, or inaccurate and/or imprecise, ?
What was put in that should have been left out ? What important facts were left out that should have been added ?
lv2dive
Formerly known as KatePNAtl
The OP may have simply been a notification but that is typically where the content and any additional relevant data is discussed. That’s just the way it works, to expect ScubaBoard to function the way one individual believes is appropriate is about as productive as pushing a rope. The best any of us can do is to “be the change we want to see.”
lv2dive
Formerly known as KatePNAtl
The discussions related to Osborne’s integrity and credentials are not ad hominem attacks; discussions related to any author / reporter (and their motivations) are extremely relevant to the conversation as they help the reader/viewer understand the context of the media being presented.
The summoning suggestion is a great one.
I suspect that most of us on ScubaBoard have only a very sketchy idea of the various challenges and of the chain of bad decisions that led to this sad outcome. I also find that the Ad Hominem attacks are not at all useful, quite the contrary.
The OP was initially to simply let us know about this documentary, but the thread has now unfortunately degenerated into a train wreck.
The kind of input that I believe might be helpful to most of us, would be to have a kind of summary of the following aspects:
What facts within the documentary are either accurate and precise, or inaccurate and/or imprecise, ?
What was put in that should have been left out ? What important fact were left out that should have been added ?
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
Not all ad hominems are fallacious. This, as many terms, has been reduced to being a buzzword that has been divorced from context. Thinking of this "documentary" more as an infomercial will help you to understand why. Nobody wants to be duped by an infomercial when it's being promoted as unbiased. It's no wonder that certain parties want to be seen in the best light possible. It's a conclusion drawn by many, including myself that there is some sort of quid pro quo involved here. It could be as banal as seeking notoriety for proposing these conspiracy theories or as nefarious as being paid. As far as I'm concerned the man with the best synopsis on this is Frank Wasson, aka @Wookie. His integrity is well established and his ability to cut through BS is legendary.
Jay
Need to dive more!
Agreed. If the above could be articulated in a factual manner that would be interesting (especially for those of us that don't know a lot about the case and haven't read all the material in various threads on SB about it).
... and the response to that was ...
... and that response does nothing to respond to repeated questioning about conflicts of interest or journalistic integrity aside from one quote/article that I *think* said he regarded himself as an acquaintance of Rob S (RIP).
On the other hand, it appears as if there is something behind this line of questioning which isn't being explicitly stated or asked, and if so and if possible, could it be said?
Regardless, an answer to @Roger Hobden's question above would be interesting and helpful.
The code of ethics cited by @boulderjohn states that the the author (@Rosborne ) owns the responsibility for disclosing conflicts. That's why it's called a scandal when someone else exposes the conflicts that an author deliberately omitted.
I've become convinced that this video is really just drivel created for money, as @netdoc stated. Although I think I'm putting it a bit more bluntly than he did.
I've become convinced that this video is really just drivel created for money, as @netdoc stated. Although I think I'm putting it a bit more bluntly than he did.
agilulfo
Contributor
I am glad I found this thread. I remember hearing about Rob Stewart's death when it happened but then did not follow up.
I just watched the documentary and I personally found it informative and thought provoking. People should watch it and decide for themselves.
Still, a couple of general points must be made.
First, I believe there is no such thing as objectivity in journalism or in any other human endeavor for that matter. This granted, in my opinion it preferable for the bias to be overt rather than to be masqueraded under a pretense of objectivity. The latter, in my opinion, is much more pernicious and deceiving.
The documentary cleary raises the possibility of foul play in the death of Rob Stewart but does not point to a foregone conclusion.
Beaver definitely gets the spotlight since he is the one raising most of the questions. Sotis also gets plenty of air time. I am not a technical diver so I cannot express an opinion on his credibility about the feasibility of doing three decompression dives in one day.
Here are some issues that I found worth raising in no particular order:
1) From the ROV footage it is obvious that the body was moved and handled as soon as it was found by the rescue divers. Was this necessary? It seems plausible that the rescuers could have attached a lift bag to the rig without need of immediately handling the body. Also, someone on this thread suggested that it would have been advisable to film the recovery. I agree. Why wasn't this done given that the rescuers did not seem to lack availability of high tech equipment?
2) One would think that the very business (Horizon Divers) who may be at fault for such an accident would not be allowed to independently search for the body especially with the lawyer from the business' insurance company on board. David Goodhue, the editor of The Reporter, is quoted saying that the presence of the insurance's forensic investigator Craig S. Jenni on the boat is a red flag.
3) In the documentary there is footage of Rob Stewart saying that on one of the dives, at 215 feet, he had built carbon dioxide and felt that he was getting tunnel vision and like fainting. Beaver, commenting on the footage, said: "That shouldn't happen." Perhaps technical divers could chime in about this but it may be the reason why Beaver leaned toward the possibility of shallow water blackout considering the fact that apparently that's also what happened to Sotis.
4) In the documentary one can hear a radio recording of Bleser saying: "Captain 25 to Central. Divers are up on the surface. We're about a mile west of Islamorada US Coast Guard small boat and we're going to be transferring the victim over to that boat as soon as we do some forensics" (emphasis added). I believe it is legitimate to ask what exactly did Horizon Divers and their insurance lawyer do before handing the body over to the coast guard.
All in all I believe the documentary raises some important questions, which is what an investigative piece of journalism should do. People can then make up their own mind about the credibility of the allegations. Naturally, this is going to be resisted by those who would like for the whole thing to go away. But it is true, at least in my opinion, that it was not ideal that Horizon Divers and their lawyer were able to retrieve the body undisturbed near the dive site while everyone else was told that the body had drifted away and were looking elsewhere.
I just watched the documentary and I personally found it informative and thought provoking. People should watch it and decide for themselves.
Still, a couple of general points must be made.
First, I believe there is no such thing as objectivity in journalism or in any other human endeavor for that matter. This granted, in my opinion it preferable for the bias to be overt rather than to be masqueraded under a pretense of objectivity. The latter, in my opinion, is much more pernicious and deceiving.
The documentary cleary raises the possibility of foul play in the death of Rob Stewart but does not point to a foregone conclusion.
Beaver definitely gets the spotlight since he is the one raising most of the questions. Sotis also gets plenty of air time. I am not a technical diver so I cannot express an opinion on his credibility about the feasibility of doing three decompression dives in one day.
Here are some issues that I found worth raising in no particular order:
1) From the ROV footage it is obvious that the body was moved and handled as soon as it was found by the rescue divers. Was this necessary? It seems plausible that the rescuers could have attached a lift bag to the rig without need of immediately handling the body. Also, someone on this thread suggested that it would have been advisable to film the recovery. I agree. Why wasn't this done given that the rescuers did not seem to lack availability of high tech equipment?
2) One would think that the very business (Horizon Divers) who may be at fault for such an accident would not be allowed to independently search for the body especially with the lawyer from the business' insurance company on board. David Goodhue, the editor of The Reporter, is quoted saying that the presence of the insurance's forensic investigator Craig S. Jenni on the boat is a red flag.
3) In the documentary there is footage of Rob Stewart saying that on one of the dives, at 215 feet, he had built carbon dioxide and felt that he was getting tunnel vision and like fainting. Beaver, commenting on the footage, said: "That shouldn't happen." Perhaps technical divers could chime in about this but it may be the reason why Beaver leaned toward the possibility of shallow water blackout considering the fact that apparently that's also what happened to Sotis.
4) In the documentary one can hear a radio recording of Bleser saying: "Captain 25 to Central. Divers are up on the surface. We're about a mile west of Islamorada US Coast Guard small boat and we're going to be transferring the victim over to that boat as soon as we do some forensics" (emphasis added). I believe it is legitimate to ask what exactly did Horizon Divers and their insurance lawyer do before handing the body over to the coast guard.
All in all I believe the documentary raises some important questions, which is what an investigative piece of journalism should do. People can then make up their own mind about the credibility of the allegations. Naturally, this is going to be resisted by those who would like for the whole thing to go away. But it is true, at least in my opinion, that it was not ideal that Horizon Divers and their lawyer were able to retrieve the body undisturbed near the dive site while everyone else was told that the body had drifted away and were looking elsewhere.
uwxplorer
Contributor
In fact, this is the wrong thread to learn anything about the accident.
The relevant threads are:
Horizon Dive Adventures Complaint Filed in Federal Court
Filmmaker Rob Stewart dies off Alligator Reef
They are long, opinions evolve as more info surfaces, but perspectives are definitely different from what sensationalists would want you to believe.
The relevant threads are:
Horizon Dive Adventures Complaint Filed in Federal Court
Filmmaker Rob Stewart dies off Alligator Reef
They are long, opinions evolve as more info surfaces, but perspectives are definitely different from what sensationalists would want you to believe.
Wookie
Proud to be a Chaos Muppet
Staff member
ScubaBoard Business Sponsor
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
I have not seen the show yet, but any suggestion that Rob was killed through anything other than a series of bad decisions on the part of mostly everyone on the Pisces that day is ludicrous. If Osbourne hints that there was a criminal conspiracy in Robs fatality, or “foul play” as stated by agilulfo above, that would be cause for real concern, but my feeling (and it’s just my feeling) that Jenni was there to protect his client. Was there a coverup of negligence? Perhaps. I’m sure Jenni will be tried alongside everyone else, directly or by the Florida Bar or on the Internet. Did someone kill Rob? I think that strains incredulity.
