Scientists chipping away the hard layer of mud that covers the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley have discovered that a view port on the front of the vessel is missing.



If no pieces of the view port are found in the ship, then it is possible the tower was knocked off when the sub sank. That would conflict with the prevailing theory that the tower was blown in by an enemy warship, causing the Hunley to fill with water.



As scientists break away the concretion covering the Hunley, they are finding clues that they hope will explain why the historic vessel disappeared right after it became the first submarine ever to sink an enemy warship in 1864.

"Any damage to those viewports could have been fatal to the Hunley," said state Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston and chairman of the South Carolina Hunley Commission. "What is significant therefore about the find is that we don't find a damaged viewport, we find one completely missing."

Other evidence uncovered in the restoration process indicates that the crew of the Union's Housatonic may have spotted the Hunley because the glow of lights likely seeped through the view port on the front conning tower.

Unlike other deadlights running along the top of the submarine, the lights on the conning tower did not have covers to block the glow of candles.

Records indicate that the Hunley was spotted and fired on moments before its crew shot a torpedo at the Housatonic.

The new clues are heightening interest in what is hidden behind a century of packed mud in other parts of the ship.

"It makes now more important than ever to examine the front tower and hatch and determine if the hatch was in fact completely fastened or was injured by potentially the damage from the front eyepiece," McConnell said.

He said with the removal of the concretion, the Hunley Commission could begin to see "a discovery a month."

The slow process of removing the material is just about 5 percent complete, he said. Given the pace, he said scientists are probably 10 to 12 months away from uncovering the mystery of why the Hunley failed to return after its mission.

Archaeologists hope to finish the restoration by 2009.

The sub was discovered off the South Carolina coast a decade ago and raised in 2000. The remains of the Hunley's eight-man crew were buried last year in a Charleston ceremony.



http://www.islandpacket.com/news/state/reg...p-4900990c.html

Hmmmm.... <_< Very interesting. I wonder what Clive has to say on the matter??? Thanks for posting. A good mystery always stirs the imagination. :)

You know it's funny... maybe its just the way the picture was taken(first pic), but doesn't the Hunley look WAY small? Or was it small compared to the later subs? As you can tell, I don't know much about the Hunley. :huh:

While it gives some clue to what happened it raises more questions. Will the riddle ever be solved? :lol: History if filled with unsloved questions. I hope this one can be answered.

Heather, you can find measurements and info about the hunley here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Hunley

and I've attached an image of a guy sitting on the inside to show how cramped it was. He would be one of the guys turning the propeller crank. I'm not sure if this is a replica, although I imagine it would be. I was looking for a better picture but couldn't find the one I was thinking of. It's kind of dark, so hopefully it will get larger when you click on it.

P.S. That guy is not me, I found it on Google Images. cop:

You know, is it really all that hard to say "The sub was discovered off the South Carolina coast a decade ago BY AUTHOR/EXPLORER CLIVE CUSSLER and raised in 2000"??? These people wouldn't even have mud to scrape off if it weren't for him. :angry:

There is a great book called "Raising the Hunley" by Brian Hicks and Schruyler Kropf that you should check out.

I'm with you Erik but we all know who discovered it!!

Thanks...Erik :P
I think I might just read "Raising the Hunley" Thanks Empress. :)

That wikipedia article (I love wikipedia) directed me to the fact that a TV movie was made about the Hunley in 1999. I'd have loved to have seen that!

Here's a related story which includes "Horace the crab" ;


For 10 years, the single-bullet theory has been the most compelling explanation for the H.L. Hunley's disappearance - its own lone gunman legend.

A Yankee sailor targets the Confederate sub's forward view port, glowing yellow from interior candlelight, as it approaches the Housatonic. Moments before the Hunley sinks the Union sloop, the sailor hits his mark.

The bullet leaves a hole in the port that allows seawater to pour in, eventually sending the Hunley to the bottom of the ocean.

This theory, based primarily on a fist-sized hole in the tower, offers a plausible explanation for why the Hunley vanished shortly after it sank the Housatonic on Feb. 17, 1864.

But scientists say the evidence - or rather, the lack thereof - shows that it probably didn't happen that way.

Hunley conservators have began work on the forward conning tower, removing glass from view ports in this relatively unexplored area of the sub. Scientists still don't know how the hatch latched, or the exact purpose of the five ports in it - one on each side, two in the front, one on the hatch.

But they have found that only the tiniest sliver of a flange remains for the port side forward viewing port - the one that figures into the single-bullet theory.

It appears the port wasn't shot, it's just missing.

"Had we found the glass from that port inside the sub, perhaps we would have had the smoking gun," Sen. Glenn McConnell, chairman of the Hunley Commission, said Wednesday. "But it appears the smoking gun is missing."

Historical accounts from Housatonic survivors describe the sight of the Hunley's deadlights and ports glowing yellow - it was the only part of the sub they could really see that night. They shot at the sub, but didn't think they had hit it. The hole in the tower found 136 years after the battle suggested otherwise.

Paul Mardikian, the Hunley's senior conservator, tackled the tower with a few questions in mind.

"Is there a way to kill the lights?" he asked. "Are these the same as the other ports?"

The answers, which support the single-bullet theory, are no and no. The deadlights along the sub's top had shutters that allowed them to hide the light and seal leaks if the glass were shot. The tower's ports, barely 2.5 inches wide, didn't come with that option.

The sub had two round forward viewing ports on the tower, and it is the left - or port side - port that is missing. And no trace of it was found in the sub. If it had been shot that night, the glass would have exploded into the tower and littered the Hunley's floor.

But there has been no glass found. There is still some concretion on the Hunley's floor, and Mardikian said the glass could be embedded there. But there is certainly no guarantee.

"There's still the possibility, but I don't think so," McConnell said. "I think we'll find that damage happened later."

The single-bullet theory has been around for years, based on the Housatonic sailors' accounts of shooting at the Hunley. When Clive Cussler's NUMA team found and photographed the sub - including the hole in the conning tower - in 1995, that cemented the theory in some people's minds.

At the time, a crab that Cussler's guys named Horace (after Horace Hunley) was living in the hole. The sub was filled with sand almost all the way up to the lip of that hole.

So where does that hole come from? It could have happened years later, an errant anchor drop, or perhaps some 19th century treasure hunter even broke it off.

More answers could come when the conservators move their work to the aft conning tower. That tower, which might be made from the same cast as the forward tower turned around backward, could provide a few answers. Mardikian hopes to begin exploring that tower in the coming weeks.

Barring some new find, the single-bullet theory likely has been laid to rest. That leaves behind several slightly less dramatic theories. Either the crew ran out of air, the sub was hit by another ship and damaged, or the crew submerged to wait on the incoming tide and passed out, succumbing to anoxia - a lack of oxygen to the brain.

McConnell said as scientists explore the final corners of the Hunley, and the discoveries of this five-year-old project are examined, the answer might be around the corner.

"I would like to think we are months, no more than a year, away from solving the ultimate mystery," McConnell said.

link

just a observation ...but i do belive it was small because in the 1800s were not people in general smaller/shorter than now buy comparison..the hunely was not built to acommodate people that average what 5-10 or so was not the average hight of most americans in the 1800 around 5-2 or so...

Cool article, Tony, and good observation, quetico. An intriguing mystery indeed, and finally some props to Clive.

I saw that movie. I also have a videotape of the sub. I don't remember if it's the same movie or another one. I'll have to find it and rewatch it. If I can get a copy made of it I'll send it to you. w:

:) :)

Do :lol: I see smiley faces coming from our very own sinister Foss Gly???

Can you believe it????? w:

<_<

HAHA! :lol: I like Foss Gly's response, it says it all. :P

Guys

I saw that TV movie in October when I was in Turkey. It was in Turkish but you could still work out what was going on. I picked it as being about the Hunley when I saw some of the graphics (which were pretty good), my wife asked what that was so I had to explain, including who found it. Jodi had just started reading my CC books so she thought that was rather cool.

I guess the Hunley, being new technology, wasn't that big because it wasn't designed to be an ocean going vessel, more of a coastal, close to shore combatant. Can't remember if she had ballast tanks or not but by keeping her small I guess she might have been easier to pump dry. Or did she carry lead weights?

Got "The Montor Chronicles" for Xmas, looks like I had better find that Hunley book!

Cheers and beers

Andy