Another expedition
- Thread starter AL Glover
- Start date
-
- Tags
- expeditions
Mark Draper
Member
James Cameron is going this summer to visit the wreck site.
1 other comment about this,I REALLY believe this, WHEN will people/subs stop landing on the Titanic,
ONLY when one of the subs lands on it, then falls through the deck,or someone dies,,
in other words when a bad accident happens,then & only then maybe all gov't of the world
will say look,
flyover,or salvage ONLY from the debris field,NO ONE allowed within 20 feet of the actual structure
ONLY when one of the subs lands on it, then falls through the deck,or someone dies,,
in other words when a bad accident happens,then & only then maybe all gov't of the world
will say look,
flyover,or salvage ONLY from the debris field,NO ONE allowed within 20 feet of the actual structure
Bill Willard
Member
Hello Al,
Allow me to share a differing opinion. I disagree with your assessment concerning visits to the site.
First... In 200 years, there will be nothing left to view... When that generation asks.... "why didn't they do more when they found her, because it's all gone now?" All we will have is what the recovery teams and the subs have filmed. RMS Titanic, Inc., Cameron, and even Ballard have impressive video of the wreck, but WE NEVER GET TO SEE MUCH OF IT.
Secondly, I don't like the flyover only idea because....at $35,000 per person, could you afford the trip? Certainly not me. there already exists a descrimination for those who get to go see Titanic. Again, the names above go and film, and show us portions. Some of the images are incredible, though, aren't they?
I agree with many that the site must be treated with the utmost of respect. That and safety should be the top priorities for any dive to the site.
Bill Willard
Allow me to share a differing opinion. I disagree with your assessment concerning visits to the site.
First... In 200 years, there will be nothing left to view... When that generation asks.... "why didn't they do more when they found her, because it's all gone now?" All we will have is what the recovery teams and the subs have filmed. RMS Titanic, Inc., Cameron, and even Ballard have impressive video of the wreck, but WE NEVER GET TO SEE MUCH OF IT.
Secondly, I don't like the flyover only idea because....at $35,000 per person, could you afford the trip? Certainly not me. there already exists a descrimination for those who get to go see Titanic. Again, the names above go and film, and show us portions. Some of the images are incredible, though, aren't they?
I agree with many that the site must be treated with the utmost of respect. That and safety should be the top priorities for any dive to the site.
Bill Willard
Jeremy Lee
Member
However, I still can't the carelessness that the wreck is being treated with. Just how much garbage has been left at the wreck and its surrounding area, and the 'accidential' destruction of the crow's nest etc. shows just how the wreck has been treated.
Michael H. Standart
Member
What accidental destruction of the crows nest? The thing was on the verge of falling off anyway and I've seen no convincing evidence that this happened for any reason other then corrosion and time doing it's thing.
Perhaps Bill can speak to this one as it's my understanding that the assertion that the crows nest was knocked off has been thoroughly debunked.
Perhaps Bill can speak to this one as it's my understanding that the assertion that the crows nest was knocked off has been thoroughly debunked.
Bill Willard
Member
It has, Michael, many times. There are those who won't believe the arguments against the claim, yet there is no proof for the claim as well.
We might as well add the mast light, discussed in the same arena.
As far as trash at the site, if you are referring to iron, used as ballast for all the submersibles that have gone down, thats arbitrary. There has been a claim about trash on the bottom of the ocean around the wreck, but I have yet to see the video about it. If there are beer cans and so forth from above, I agree that is irresponsible. BUT, I would like to see the cans to see if they are UK cans, Canadian, Russian, USA, or whomever. A flyby would do. Then we more closely accuse the guilty parties.
Ballard's major point in 2004 claimed that the salvagers (face it, RMST, Inc) had done significant damage to the wreck, yet he made his claims before arriving at the site. Thus it was a conclusion drawn with no factual evidence. Secondly the show itself shows little to reinforce his claim as well. So is the wreck being treated respectfully?? By the majority yes. Are there some who don't care as much as I (and others here) do? Yes. But we can't block them all because a few are irresponsible.
We might as well add the mast light, discussed in the same arena.
As far as trash at the site, if you are referring to iron, used as ballast for all the submersibles that have gone down, thats arbitrary. There has been a claim about trash on the bottom of the ocean around the wreck, but I have yet to see the video about it. If there are beer cans and so forth from above, I agree that is irresponsible. BUT, I would like to see the cans to see if they are UK cans, Canadian, Russian, USA, or whomever. A flyby would do. Then we more closely accuse the guilty parties.
Ballard's major point in 2004 claimed that the salvagers (face it, RMST, Inc) had done significant damage to the wreck, yet he made his claims before arriving at the site. Thus it was a conclusion drawn with no factual evidence. Secondly the show itself shows little to reinforce his claim as well. So is the wreck being treated respectfully?? By the majority yes. Are there some who don't care as much as I (and others here) do? Yes. But we can't block them all because a few are irresponsible.
Parks Stephenson
Member
What damage has been caused by visitors is miniscule in comparison to the damage that the ship did to itself during the sinking process and the constant attacks by deep-sea organisms since.
Do you want to know what caused the eventual collapse of the Gymnasium roof and the largest hole to open up in Boat Deck? It was the collapse of the #2 funnel. Do you want to know why Boat Deck forward has been flattened and the outboard wall of Smith's cabin torn away? Again, another funnel (the mast did its part, too). The metal walls that make up the superstructure are getting progressively thinner as they become food for the rusticles and are beginning to collapse of their own remaining weight. The large holes that have opened up in the forward (vertical) wall of the Elevator Machinery Room (which no human explorer has touched with his equipment) provides a prime example of this. Yes, you can point to specific examples of damage done to the wreck by man since 1985, but I cannot think of any modern damage that has robbed us of the opportunity to learn more about the ship.
The scientific study of the wreck's environment is another matter entirely, which I'm not qualified to describe in detail. I understand, though, that it's not often that scientists have the opportunity to observe the creation of an entire deep-water eco-system over the course of a century.
Every explorer has caused accidental damage to the wreck, from Ballard to Tulloch to Cameron and everyone in between. It's tricky operating at that depth around an ever-changing wrecksite. But the information that we have learned from the wreck has been priceless. If you appreciated Bill Sauder's recent article on the engine-room telegraphs (posted in the Titanic section of my site), just know that that article would not have been possible without the telegraphs recovered by RMST. There was no extant information concerning the exact composition and layout of the world's most famous wireless telegraph until Cameron went inside the wreck and discovered the intact transmitting apparatus. The wreck has been thoroughly mapped by Ballard, giving us a true appreciation for how it broke apart and the condition it lies in today. These are only a few examples of the return of information from exploring the wreck.
I consider myself a forensic analyst. When an aircraft falls from the sky, a full effort is made to recover every piece of wreckage for as complete a physical reconstruction of the aircraft as possible. This is done to learn from the accident so that safety changes can be made. I do not hear cries for protection of those wrecks...people (even the families of the deceased) do not see that as a violation of a sacred place. So, I do not see why Titanic should be any different. No, we probably will not learn anything from a study of the Titanic wreck that will make shipbuilding better or transiting the Atlantic safer, because Titanic belonged to another technological age. But we are learning more about the ship itself, the people who sailed in her and the times in which the ship lived, by examining the wreck as closely as possible. Exterior observation is only half the equation...the interior holds as many or more gems of information as can be seen outside. I do not see the search for that information as being disrespectful, especially when we are in a race with Nature's creatures to extract this information before the wreck is consumed.
Would I be willing to put my life on the line in the quest for this information? We may soon find out.
Parks
Do you want to know what caused the eventual collapse of the Gymnasium roof and the largest hole to open up in Boat Deck? It was the collapse of the #2 funnel. Do you want to know why Boat Deck forward has been flattened and the outboard wall of Smith's cabin torn away? Again, another funnel (the mast did its part, too). The metal walls that make up the superstructure are getting progressively thinner as they become food for the rusticles and are beginning to collapse of their own remaining weight. The large holes that have opened up in the forward (vertical) wall of the Elevator Machinery Room (which no human explorer has touched with his equipment) provides a prime example of this. Yes, you can point to specific examples of damage done to the wreck by man since 1985, but I cannot think of any modern damage that has robbed us of the opportunity to learn more about the ship.
The scientific study of the wreck's environment is another matter entirely, which I'm not qualified to describe in detail. I understand, though, that it's not often that scientists have the opportunity to observe the creation of an entire deep-water eco-system over the course of a century.
Every explorer has caused accidental damage to the wreck, from Ballard to Tulloch to Cameron and everyone in between. It's tricky operating at that depth around an ever-changing wrecksite. But the information that we have learned from the wreck has been priceless. If you appreciated Bill Sauder's recent article on the engine-room telegraphs (posted in the Titanic section of my site), just know that that article would not have been possible without the telegraphs recovered by RMST. There was no extant information concerning the exact composition and layout of the world's most famous wireless telegraph until Cameron went inside the wreck and discovered the intact transmitting apparatus. The wreck has been thoroughly mapped by Ballard, giving us a true appreciation for how it broke apart and the condition it lies in today. These are only a few examples of the return of information from exploring the wreck.
I consider myself a forensic analyst. When an aircraft falls from the sky, a full effort is made to recover every piece of wreckage for as complete a physical reconstruction of the aircraft as possible. This is done to learn from the accident so that safety changes can be made. I do not hear cries for protection of those wrecks...people (even the families of the deceased) do not see that as a violation of a sacred place. So, I do not see why Titanic should be any different. No, we probably will not learn anything from a study of the Titanic wreck that will make shipbuilding better or transiting the Atlantic safer, because Titanic belonged to another technological age. But we are learning more about the ship itself, the people who sailed in her and the times in which the ship lived, by examining the wreck as closely as possible. Exterior observation is only half the equation...the interior holds as many or more gems of information as can be seen outside. I do not see the search for that information as being disrespectful, especially when we are in a race with Nature's creatures to extract this information before the wreck is consumed.
Would I be willing to put my life on the line in the quest for this information? We may soon find out.
Parks
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>It has, Michael, many times. <<
I figured as much. Still, they just keep on coming as if somehow repeating them will make them so. The trash that's supposedly littering the site in a few odd places really wouldn't surprie me. People tend to be a sloppy lot, the existance of same doesn't always speak to where it came from or who dropped it there. Cruise ships and freighters still transit the area, and commercial fishing has been going on there for centuries.
>>Would I be willing to put my life on the line in the quest for this information? We may soon find out.<<
A possible hint of things to come, Parks? I hope you get your chance to go down there one of these days.
I figured as much. Still, they just keep on coming as if somehow repeating them will make them so. The trash that's supposedly littering the site in a few odd places really wouldn't surprie me. People tend to be a sloppy lot, the existance of same doesn't always speak to where it came from or who dropped it there. Cruise ships and freighters still transit the area, and commercial fishing has been going on there for centuries.
>>Would I be willing to put my life on the line in the quest for this information? We may soon find out.<<
A possible hint of things to come, Parks? I hope you get your chance to go down there one of these days.
Dan Cherry
Member
Michael wrote in response to Jeremy's statement:
"What accidental destruction of the crows nest? The thing was on the verge of falling off anyway and I've seen no convincing evidence that this happened for any reason other than corrosion and time doing its thing."
Agreed. The 1985 and 1986 Ballard expedition photos show the thin crow's nest askew on the mast, empty of any components, or "the bell". It's been said that when, in so many words, the expedition went to retrieve the bell, the crow's nest collapsed. The bell wasn't even there, just the bracket above. This was proven by the 1985 pictures, supplemented by the 1986 snapshots. There is a brief flyover of the mast aired on the "Telly-vision" show in October 1987 of the Nautile expedition. It showed that the crow's nest had split in two and lay flat on the mast itself, looking ready at any moment to fall off.
As far as I could tell, there was no fresh bump marks on the remains, or anything to indicate that this was nothing more/less than the effects of 75 years of time and salt water doing its thing to metal.
"What accidental destruction of the crows nest? The thing was on the verge of falling off anyway and I've seen no convincing evidence that this happened for any reason other than corrosion and time doing its thing."
Agreed. The 1985 and 1986 Ballard expedition photos show the thin crow's nest askew on the mast, empty of any components, or "the bell". It's been said that when, in so many words, the expedition went to retrieve the bell, the crow's nest collapsed. The bell wasn't even there, just the bracket above. This was proven by the 1985 pictures, supplemented by the 1986 snapshots. There is a brief flyover of the mast aired on the "Telly-vision" show in October 1987 of the Nautile expedition. It showed that the crow's nest had split in two and lay flat on the mast itself, looking ready at any moment to fall off.
As far as I could tell, there was no fresh bump marks on the remains, or anything to indicate that this was nothing more/less than the effects of 75 years of time and salt water doing its thing to metal.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>As far as I could tell, there was no fresh bump marks on the remains, or anything to indicate that this was nothing more/less than the effects of 75 years of time and salt water doing its thing to metal.<<
Ahhhhh...but it sure makes a handy story to tell for somebody with an agenda trying to "Get The Message Out" doesn't it?
Ahhhhh...but it sure makes a handy story to tell for somebody with an agenda trying to "Get The Message Out" doesn't it?
Dan Cherry
Member
Facts? What facts? (wink wink)
Eric Paddon
Member
If the ghost of a certain person could return to haunt this thread, he'd be claiming again about how he had new "unseen video" of "crows nest destruction" that aired only in his part of the country where RMSTI bashers happened to live, but everyone else didn't see.
The whole crows nest destruction issue is IMO the ultimate example of deception pulled off by Robert Ballard. The only thing that can partially explain how this lie got started in the first place was because RMSTI I believe misinterpreted their debris field recovery of a telephone (which was the stern docking bridge phone) and a bell as coming from the crows nest when they did not (at least we can't be sure regarding the bell, but definitely not the phone) and because they made some statements suggesting this is where they thought they came from, that gave Ballard the opening to expand on that misinterpretation into his outright lie about deliberate crows nest destruction.
The whole crows nest destruction issue is IMO the ultimate example of deception pulled off by Robert Ballard. The only thing that can partially explain how this lie got started in the first place was because RMSTI I believe misinterpreted their debris field recovery of a telephone (which was the stern docking bridge phone) and a bell as coming from the crows nest when they did not (at least we can't be sure regarding the bell, but definitely not the phone) and because they made some statements suggesting this is where they thought they came from, that gave Ballard the opening to expand on that misinterpretation into his outright lie about deliberate crows nest destruction.
Parks Stephenson
Member
The issue of the crow's nest is moot now, anyway. The mast has split open and sagged to the deck under its own weight. If you look at the mast from the side now, it forms a "V" shape. The corner of the "V" rests on the well deck. The area of the mast where the crow's nest was attached is lying atop the No.2 hatch coaming. Looking at the fragility of the crow's nest in the original ANGUS imagery and the condition of the mast today, I would speculate with confidence that if the crow's nest had not disappeared earlier, it would fallen from the mast into the No. 2 hatch when the mast collapsed onto the well deck. There's no way that the nest would have survived in its original position on the mast to present day. That's something to keep in mind...there is no such thing as permanance where the wreck is concerned. The only permanent legacy for the souls who perished is not to be found in a disintegrating heap of metal, but rather in the minds (and understanding) of men.
Parks
Parks
Similar threads
