I attended the talk, given by Dana Wagner, last night on Admiral Rickover and
the Destruction of USS MAINE. For the record, Hansen, Price, Wagner and
Duncan (the scientists and historians that worked on Rickover’s book) dispute
the assumptions and findings of the AME study which is the basis of the NAVAL
HISTORY article. In particular, the “Rickover team” is convinced that a mine
could NOT have caused the reserve six-inch magazine to explode. Both sets of
technical experts examined the same photographic and documentary evidence,
including the bottom plates bent inward and back (mentioned by Bill and
Brooks). Yet, they have come to very different conclusions.

I understand that not everyone in the AME study agrees with the official
conclusions. I was given a verbal summary of this contrary view (which agrees
with the Rickover team). It was difficult for me to follow, but suffice it to
say that the technical evidence is more thorough than what we have seen in
print. There will be a conference on the Destruction of the MAINE in the D.C.
area in April. Hopefully, the papers will be published and understanding on
this issue will be advanced.

>>The article in NAVAL HISTORY states that the Rickover investigation
said that the *inrush of water flooding into the ship* caused the inward
deformation. Not the same thing at all, and the inrush of water would
likely have a much lower load applied to the hull plating than the
shock effect.<< My recollection is that the *inrush of water* is part of the Hansen-Price Study's explanation for the inward deformation of the bottom plates, which is generally stated as caused by *the dynamic effects of the sinking subsequent to the explosion.* I'll check my copy at the office on Monday. BTW, REMEMBERING THE MAINE by Peggy and Harold Samuels does indeed provide deeper analysis/speculation on who could have planted the mine and how than anyone else in print. Mark Hayes Naval Historical Center Early History Branch Washington, D.C.