When is salvaging from inside the wreck justified

[Paul Lee]

When the Mount Temple went down in 1916, she was carrying a large cargo of dinosaur fossils, and there have been some suggestions of rescuing them.

This got me thinking: if there was something priceless and unique (NOT Byzanium!) in the Titanic, would it be justified for salvage teams to enter the hull and retrieve them, either with ROVs or cutting tools?

Cheers

Paul

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I'd have a hard time dealing with that one. I don't think I'd attempt it for profit...and not because of ethical issues...but because frankly, I don't think it would be very safe. The Titanic isn't deteriorating as fast as the Anfrea Doria is, but how do you know that something you want to cut away isn't holding a particular section together? No matter how rich the prize, it's a bit tough to enjoy it if your dead.

What I'd have to ask would be if any recovery would preserve some important piece of evidence...if removing it would destroy the context of that evidence, or if any such would preserve some piece of history that would otherwise be lost. I'd love to see the Marconi equipment recovered and restored, but would the risks outweigh the potential benefit? A lot of those structures on the Boat deck aren't in great shape. The next attempt to touch down there may well be the last for somebody.

 

[Wesley Burton]

I think that as long as it isnt the personal property of the passengers or crew, I might be okay with it. Like if it was the log or something like that. I would be against cutting the ship's hull. It was carrying the Rubiyacht (sp?). Which is as close to priceless as you can get when it comes to Titanic.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Hi Paul,

I don't think it's justified at all, as I have problems with this issue. In the summer of 2000, when RMSTI proposed to cut open the bow and go inside to search, and possibly retrieve artifacts (the Rubiayat and William Carter's car were mentioned), it went beyond what I consider ethnical.

Michael is absolutely right about the safety issue. It wouldn't be safe for a manned submersible to venture in there, as I imagine there would be many hazards to deal with. Futhermore, if the hull is cut open, it will just hasten the deterioration of the wreck.

As Michael said, what if something were to happen while the crew were down at the site? I don't believe that the hull would be able to withstand being ripped open, in my opinion.

Wesley, if the Rubiayat and the log book, weren't put in something to protect them, then it's most likely that they are gone. The only thing left from the Rubiayat if anything, would be the jewels.

Best regards,

Jason

 

[Michael H. Standart]

It would be impossible for a manned submersible to go in there, though it can be done with ROV's. The technical problem here is that ROV's small enough to get around inside the ship don't have the muscle to carry the sort of heavy tools needed to do much in the way of recovery in the wreck. Small objects perhaps, but nothing really big.

The catch here is that an ROV needs a manned submersible to operate from and those things have to touch down somwehere. As shaky as the uper works of the ship are becoming, touching down there is increasingly a bad idea, almost if not already to the point of being suicidal. They could put down on the bottom, but how much control cable can these things carry to run the ROV any useful distance inside the ship?

I suppose one day, some smart laddie or lassie is going to invent a hard suit which can operate that deep so that divers could "swim" into the ship, but by the time that happens, I doubt the condition of the hull will be any better then it is now. You sure as hell couldn't get me to try a stunt like that!

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Hi Michael,

"It would be impossible for a manned submersible to go in there, though it can be done with ROV's."

You're right, I meant to say ROV's. Thanks for pointing that out.

Best regards,

Jason

 

[Magnus Lundin]

In my opinion, no salvaging from inside the wreck can be justified, regardless what the supposed justification might be.

 

[David F. Smith]

I don't believe in Ghosts. Bring it all up!


The Titanic is best compared to the Smithsonian Museum being on fire. Would people say: "Let it burn" ?? Of course not. Society would kick the doors down to pull out the contents before the Museum burned to the ground. Letting the Titanic crumble into Oblivion is just as much a crime. Preventing the rescue of artifacts is not honoring the passengers, it is letting them slip away with the sands of time.

All of you Anti-Salvage people can meet me at your Metropolitan Museums so we can start burning books and paintings, OK?

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Letting the Titanic crumble into Oblivion is just as much a crime.<<

And what do you propose to do about it that's within the realm of technical possibility? This isn't a burning structure where you can call out the fire brigade to deal with the problem, this is a broken wreck which lies under 12,500 feet of water where pressures are three tons per square inch. Get into trouble down there and for all the lavish support you may have, you might as well be stranded on the Moon.

>>All of you Anti-Salvage people can meet me at your Metropolitan Museums so we can start burning books and paintings, OK? <<

Mmmmmmmmm...rather then just make inflammatory swipes like that, you might do well to give some due consideration to the concerns raised by those who are critical of and even opposed to salvage. I may not personally agree with some of their sentiments, but I don't always agree with those who support salvage either. However, both sides raise concerns that deserve a fair hearing and discussion, not blanket dismissal.

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

The salvage issue is one that most of us "old" board members have had our say about. I don't know what the demographic is here now but I'm sure we have many active members on both sides of the question.

I was against salvaging when I first heard that it was being proposed and I'm still not for it. I know others feel differently; many friends are avidly pro-salvage. Others, like me, find it deplorable. People can go into the archives to see past debates on this subject, one of the eternally controversial ones - right up there with the Californian topic.

While those items already brought up need to be properly cared for by reputable museums, further desecration of the site should be outlawed. It's got to be protected. Regarding the latest attempts at breeching the hull to extract personal effects from the interior, that's so unholy a violation I can't even believe sane men are contemplating it.

And as for the carnival-like exhibits of these sad items, they're disrespectful and morbid. What's more, the majority of visitors to these touring shows don't care a bit about the true history and human toll of the disaster; it's just a way to commune with the cinematic story of Jack and Rose. It was enough to make me want to wretch to see stupid tourists, in T-shirts and flip-flops, grinning and pointing to utensils most likely last held by a Titanic victim. The personal items, accompanied by display captions with misspelled names of victims and survivors or with simplistic stories to wow the average Joe, don't belong in this cheap kind of venue. It's revolting.

As to the much vaunted archaeological significance of the "artifacts," there's no real historical insight to gain from a broken piece of china or a toothbrush.

 

[Eric Paddon]

"And as for the carnival-like exhibits of these sad items, they're disrespectful and morbid. What's more, the majority of visitors to these touring shows don't care a bit about the true history and human toll of the disaster."

If I could boil my response to one word it would be BULL!

The artifact exhibitions for me are and always will be the most moving displays of anything related to the Titanic I have ever seen. I have attended these exhibitions three times and not once did I ever see any of that behavior you ascribe to those who visit them. What I saw were people fascinated by seeing history in front of them in the same way that any person who visits a museum is fascinated to see something connected with history before their own eyes.

If we want to talk about a real case of a disrespectful Titanic exhibition though, I need only point to that farce in Orlando with their unfunny costumed tour guides spouting their disinformation about stolen stern plaques and artifacts being sold on e-bay. *That* is my definition of revolting and they're the ones who aren't displaying salvaged artifacts.

 

[Magnus Lundin]

I can't understand the phrase "rescue of artifacts"? Pieces of art? Most of the artifacts on the wreck site are everyday items. I can't abide those pictures of artifacts being conserved, "restored" and private letters read. During the 1994 expedition, the wreck site was compared to a salad. 68 % of the people aboard the Titanic perished, let their personal belongings, and their grave, be. Enough damage has been done to the Titanic during those expeditions.

 

[Eric Paddon]

The artifacts are significant because of their association with a great moment in history. It is not the fact that they are "everyday items" it is the fact that they are "everyday items" that were part of a famous event in history which requires their preservation for the same reason that similar artifacts have been preserved for generations from both shipwrecks and other famous historical sites. There is absolutely no reason for Titanic to be treated any differently.

And incidentally, if you can't "abide" seeing precious historical legacies preserved for future generations so they aren't left with just murky underwater video, then no one is forcing you to go to such an exhibition. But kindly leave the rest of us who are moved by such exhibits and who understand the role they serve alone and stop trying to foist your dubious sanctimonious claptrap about their supposed "sacredness" on the rest of us and deny us of our right to appreciate what has been done.

As for what's caused damage to the Titanic, it isn't the salvage expeditions that have damaged the ship (unless you like to believe Robert Ballard's lies about crows nest telephones and bells), it's the ravages of time and nature taking its course. We've been given a chance to save precious legacies of the ship for future generations to enjoy before nature can destroy them, and God bless those who've done so!

 

[monica e. hall]

This is the sort of topic where nobody is going to convince anybody else because views tend to both polarise strongly and get expressed forcibly. And degenerate into trading insults - which we don't need please.

 

[Magnus Lundin]

quote:

foist your dubious sanctimonious claptrap

That was a very nasty personal attack. The main reason why the expeditions went there seems to be based more on making money (in MY opinion if you're familiar with that expression) on the tragedy than anything else. In my opinion (see, there's that expression again) Titanic and the debris field are grave sites. Oh, and your statement on Ballard's "lie" is interesting. Would you care to explain how the crow's nest was still in place during the early stages of the '87 expedition (as shown in a photograph in the Swedish magazine Illustrerad Vetenskap from 1987)but gone later when Nautile retrieved the lantern from the forward mast? Oh, and please explain the damages clearly made by subs found during Ballard's latest expedition? Monica is right, but I felt a rebuttal was necessary. I don't try and force my opinion on anyone, oh, did you read the heading of this topic? When is salvaging from inside the wreck justified? I gave my view, but it seems that all you want to do is flame people who doesn't think the way you do.​