Anyone familiar with the ironclad Monitor??

[aue-mike]

Hi Darkwing-
It is generally accepted that the Monitor was first located in 1974. I would be interested in hearing information that would support your claim that you dove it around 1969.
Furthermore, if you actually did dive it, I think you would be well aware that it would be impossible to raise it "in one peice" even four decades ago.
I believe you have made this claim on other occasions but I have yet to see any evidence that would support this wild assertion.
All you are doing is complaining about the government. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, please fill us in on your first dive to the wreck of the Monitor around 1969 and of your dealings with the "bastards" in the US government.
Regards,
Mike

 

[darkwing]

SIR: Since you have taken it upon yourself to accuse me of lying and telling stories. Who made you high and mighty. I dived on the USS Monitor in the spring, prior to the storm season. She sat on her keel in about 100 feet of water, the worst for wear. The storms off North Carolina can be a *****. She was in OK condition and with the proper eguipment, could be raised. The Smithsonian Inst. told me that I had to get permission from the US Navy. The US Navy told me that the USS Monitor was a commisioned vessel and that to remove any or all was in violation of federal law. What federal law they would not tell me. Also they would not give me any proof that the ship was still commisioned within the US Navy. You can accept or reject what I have written? CASE CLOSED

 

[aue-mike]

Darkwing-
Please review my post -- I did not accuse you of lying. However, I do believe in credibility of which I saw none in your posts.
In any case, you positively did not dive the Monitor. As I said, it was first positively identified in 1974, not in 1965 or 1969 as you claim. Furthermore, if you knew anything about the site, you would realize the USS Monitor rests in approximately 230 feet of water, approximately 18 miles from Hatteras Inlet. You said you dove it in 100 feet of water??? You said she was resting on her keel??
By your own statements it is obvious you never dove the Monitor. Again, the USS Monitor is resting upside down, not on her keel (she had no distinct keel but was more or less flat-bottomed for estuarine and river duty), and in 230 feet of water. Please do not suggest that the wreck moved to deeper water or some other crazy theory. While wrecks can indeed be moved by storm events, the archaeology of the site matches with the sinking history and current disposition. She could not have been moved without the loss of several features, such as the turret (the turret was not attached per se, but weighed down by her own weight; once she sunk and turtled, the turret popped off and the wreck smashed stern first, damaging the rudder -- still missing -- and then the hull came to rest on the turret).
I have no idea what you think you were diving back in the 60s, but it was not the Monitor. I have tons of pictures and video to back these points up. You can find some information, schematics, and pictures of the wreck on the AUE website, and also do a web search on Google or any other search engine to learn more about the USS Monitor.
Sorry....

Cheers,
Mike