On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:47:53 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer
wrote:

Whatever, there haven't been that many tsunami. One on the (get this)
NW shoes of the Balearic Islands after a quake in Morocco and of
course the one off Sumatra the 26th December 2004.

Don't forget what happened in Hawaii in the early '80s, when puzzled
tourists thought there was a food scare when they heard about a
"salami warning."

http://salamitsunami.com/archives/152

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:38:49 GMT, Skywise
wrote:

Well, since we do not know which submarine it is, this is all
conjecture. There are military submarines with cameras and/or
windows. There are some designed for bottom work. Further, we
don't know that it was even a military sub, only military men.

I wish I could remember where I read this. It may have been one of
those chintzy Walter Dudley books for dumb bunnies.

It was in one of those Dudley books that I read about the Air Force
crews who witnessed something very strange (from the air) as the 1946
Aleutian tsunami was entering Hilo Bay.

There are many tsunami/salami mysteries that we need Gerard or Jose to
solve for us!

In article ,
says...


Unlikely. Without powerful lights they are completly useless at
depth (even at IR frequencies).

Well, since we do not know which submarine it is, this is all
conjecture. There are military submarines with cameras and/or
windows. There are some designed for bottom work. Further, we
don't know that it was even a military sub, only military men.

Well yes. None of which counters the fact that the use of
cameras at depth is unlikely, nor that they require powerful
lights to be of any use.



I think some folks read what they wanted to read, and not what
was actually written. I have a hunch some thought the implication
was a big missile carrying nuke aka "boomer".


I have to admit I did assume that it was a military submarine,
however I think a nuclear submarine to be unlikely also. They
tend to stay away from the bottom in deep waters, as they tend
to be more visible. If it was a military sub, I would guess a
smaller, older, diesel on training operations.

Thinking back to the original post though, I'm now not so sure
that a tsunami would pick up much sediment at depth. Because of
the large wavelength, any actual physical motion of the water
would be extremely slow. It generally takes 15 minutes or more
for one wave to pass and the actual movement of the water is
over a very small distance. It could be that the movement of
the sea floor (by whatever caused the tsunami) is a more likely
suspect for disturbing sediment.

Brian



--
Alan LeHun

The Other Guy wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:38:49 GMT, Skywise
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:08:19 -0800, The Other Guy
wrote:

No, THAT was not my post!!

You are correct. It was David Oberman.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?