Talk:Blue Baron (shipwreck)

Port Nicholson

Given what we know now, the talk of Guyanese coast location appears to have been a ruse. A rather bizarre one though. The picture they originally released is clearly Port Nicholson, easily found and identifiable on a number of sites on the web, and correctly by the Telegraph in the first place, though they did get the owner wrong. The location was easily disprovable, since the location of U-87 is known and there was no way that she could have been sinking ships off Massachusetts in mid June, and could have sneaked down before or after in the month and bagged one off Guyana. The story of the stop in South America is presumably to justify the location, the claim that the log book confirmed the location really depended on no one following that up in any detail. They gave the submarine, the date, even the picture. Either all that was a lie, or the location was. I can't really work out why they bothered to make an announcement in the first place, as opposed to just salvaging it as quietly as possible. If anyone had really followed it up they could have wrinkled the truth out with minimal effort. But enough of that, given that this billion-pound wreck is known now, this little ruse can be merged and folded in with the article on the actual ship, SS Port Nicholson (1918). Any objections? Benea (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

None from me - merge seems like the sensible plan. I will put a merge tag on. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)