Taking more artifacts from the wreck

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Shelley,

I too am a bit taken aback by your saying Ballard was pro-salvage at one point. I have the feeling that this must have been a stance taken on much the same premise as your own which is that he wanted salvage rights ONLY to prevent those with less noble intentions from taking things. Surely it was a measure Ballard was willing to take for the sake of protecting the Titanic from the scavengers that are now there.

Also, for what it's worth, you are no average gal as you so modestly claim. You have the inside track on so many people in Titanic circles and know the truth behind so many goings-on that there would be no minor quake among THS and TI luminaries if you said what you could say. It's a good thing you are a discreet soul. Also you've known so many survivors and relatives that you absolutely are Queen Bee in my Titanic book - and speaking of books, why aren't you doing one? No one can have been more fortunate than you in being a part of so many important projects and events.

As to the current thread, there's much merit in what both you and Inger have said. I understand your viewpoint and respect it because I know there's nobody out there in the Titanic arena with a bigger heart than yourself. But my own views are much closer to Inger's. The only difference in my argument would be that I am unable to use the term "bloody" as effectively as she does!

You two ladies are such incredible individuals and so integral to the study of Titanic that I can't stand to see any disagreement between you but the truth is this topic is so touchy it is impossible to discuss it without getting emotional.

Now kiss and make up and I don't want to hear another...

"gall-dern thang a-said that'll cause cross feelins between ya'll again, ya hear? Cap'n Cook and his posse are jest phone calls away - so don't make the Lone Star arm of the law come -a-crashin' down on you two girlies..."

All my best,

Randy

 

[Inger Sheil]

Shelley:

Nobody's intelligence was being insulted.

Just my ability to ascertain what the issues are.

You stated the following:

You missed my point- nobody can make you accept anything if you will not consider any other factors involved..

The above makes the assumption that I have not considered these 'other factors', and that if I did I would 'accept' your arguments. That is offensive to me as a critical, thinking human being capable of making my own assessments on these 'factors'.

I ALSO do not approve of the current salvage expeditions for reasons I have already stated.

As I said - you can draw whatever distinctions you like between past and present salvage expeditions. It doesn't matter to me. As far as I'm concerned, it's all part of the same ongoing process. I won't accept that the ends justifies the means.

I did take part in an active way in the preliminary endeavors becaused I believed that if the items were coming UP, the resources ,archives, special talents and abilities of people who truly DO care about these things ought to be available to whoever was going to do the salvage. I still believe it was the right decision.

That's your view, and I've always stated I respected those who genuinely believed in what they were doing. And I still believe it was the wrong decision. Nothing you have said has swayed me in the slightest.

I came to my own conclusions about salvage a long time ago, but discussions with some remarkable individuals who lost family members in the disaster have reinforced that point of view.

This is not about changing minds, forcing anything down anybody's throat.

I certainly felt that you were forcing your view on me with the comment to the effect that I was not considering other factors involved. The assumption that I did not consider -or was ignorant of - your 'factors' was offensive.

I was not talking about "charming" people involved- I was speaking of a man with integrity, high standards both scientifically and morally and a mission which filled my criteria for worthiness if the job was going to be done.

Don't reduce my characterisation of possible attributes of those involved to my use of the word 'charming' - there was more to it than that. You can ascribe all those qualities to the individual you refer to if you wish - I don't care if Moses makes a personal appearance and parts the waters to aid the salvors. It does not affect my opinion on whether the Titanic should be salvaged.

I was not comparing Ballard's opinion to your own- I was offering an interesting aspect of an anti-salvage high-profile authority which is NOT widely known because it transpired in 1985 and was not highly publicized .

You made the following reference to Ballard in a response that was addressed to me: What I posted above is simply fact, not my opinion, hence my response that Ballard's views bore no relation whatsoever to my own. I reiterate that. If you address a remark at me specifically, as you did in this instance, then make it relevant to what I have argued. In introducing it into your response to my comments you introduce a red herring. Discuss Ballard with the others on the board - not with me. It is not at all relevant to my views on salvage.

Maureen was quite right when she said this was a sore point - it is. For years now I've tried to avoid the salvage debate - not shrinking from giving my view when it was asked, but certainly not seeking out discussion on it. Ostrich-like, I found the subject so abhorrent that I rather hoped that if I ignored it, it would go away.

Recently, I found it impossible to maintain that denial. In a discussion in another forum, when I simply stated support for the views of another opponent of salvage, I was told to 'recant' my views. While interviewing and simply talking with the families of individuals who perished in the wreck I was once again confronted with the salvage issue. I don't bring it up as it's such a sensitive topic, but the discussion was initiated by the person with whom I spoke. The words 'circus' and 'intrusive' - which you will see recur in my own views - came into it frequently. One reason why some individuals will not come forward with their material is that they are disgusted by the intrusive interest of a public that seems to think that the entire disaster was put on for their entertainment. Too many have a stylised appreciation of what occured - rather like those movie-goers who mourned so much for Jack Dawson they put flowers on 'his' grave...not giving a rats' about the real Dawson who perished.

I've been in the same room as salvaged items -and, as I said before, my personal response was one of revulsion and horror. That is just as legitimate a response as those who feel that the items inspire some sort of closer connection with the past. Removed from their context, there is an element of surreal absurdity to all this...a pair of socks becomes some sort of bizarre object of reverence. But it doesn't tell us anything about the person who wore them other than...well...that he wore socks. This is the detritus of their lives, an unsystematic sampling that takes single elements of an individual's existence, isolates them, and distorts our overall perception of them as a human being. The elevation of trivial personal items from the early 20th Century to the status of archaeological artefact is most certainly not to my taste.

As a researcher I find the huge expenditure of time and money on this enterprise an insult. As a human being, I find it an affront.

Maureen - 'Bloody oath' is one of those glorious Aussisms (and if you don't learn it by heart, you'll be sentenced to watch the Sydney Olympics again).

'Bloody' is, of course, the great Australian adjective. In this case, it simply adds emphasis. An alternative phrase we like to use is 'Too bloody right!'. 'Damn straight' would probably be the American alternative.

Randy: It would take more than even my darling Cook, you, and all the forces of hell to make me retreat.

 

[John M. Feeney]

Sheesh! And I thought I was ornery!

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Nobody be mo ornery dan dat dar Inga Shell. She sho nuf be a tough cookie, dat one is. Wouldn't wont to get in no scuffle wid dat gul.

 

[Maureen Zottoli]

Dear Ing,
I personally would get onto Randy about calling you "ornery" but I really don't understand anything else he said. Foreigners! Now we in the Northern part of the US at least make some effort at English,...I think. Or was that John who said that? Or was it both of them. "Bloody Oath guys! wait no that's not what I meant....oh man,...not the whole Olympics again....please Ing anything but that.

Seriously, I read what you wrote above Ing and I think the light is beginning to go on for me. I simply can not go into the Hollocaust Museum here in DC. Many of my friends and relatives have gone, they have purchased a ticket for me and everything. But I can not go. I have seen many of these torture devices and have seen what they can do to people and I have witnessed many of the things that happened there via criminal activity elsewhere. I simply can not bring myself to go to a museum to see this. It is horrible. But the Jewish people have assembled this as their memorial that no one would ever forget. But that was their choice to do this. But you are right Titanic is not an archeological find nor is it the Hollocaust.

I admire you for being able to take a stand when others are taking another. To stand up for what you believe as determines as you do isa great qulaity. I respect you Ing and your view. It may not be mine or it may be mine, but it is yours and that is all that matters. I would fight to the death your right to say what you believe.

This is why everyone loves you here, because you are real and deep and sensitive and a great woman of integrity.

Most of us are just land lubbers, but folks like Erik who are sea captains, their views count heavier to me for some reason. Their views mirror many of the families views and to me speak loudly of what the average sailor or officer would have wanted if they could speak for themselves.

I do not wish to start another run, but I had to say that I respect you and I respect Shelley. Both of you have provided much insight into the Titanic and the people who sailed her and sailed on her as passengers. I hope the depth of this love for the people of Titanic that you both express here some how rubs off on anyone even contemplating salvage and that the Titanic site finds peace for the future.

Love you Ing and Shelley....(Not sure how I feel about John wayne and side kick Randy...just kidding guys.)
Enjoy your day!
Maureen.

 

[John M. Feeney]

I think it only fair to advise you, Randy, that if you continue to speak as above I will be forced to spend even more hard-earned dollars towards the acquisition of a Texican-NewJoiseyan Dictionary:

"Youse lone-stah guys shoowr do talk funny." ;^)

Cheers!
John Feeney

 

[Jan C. Nielsen]

C'mon everyone . . . that's no "Lone Star" state chatter - it sounds a lot like the demeaning racial drawl made famous in the 1950s television program "Amos & Andy." Please, guys, no more of that - even for a joke. Thanks.

 

[Mike Poirier]

Not that the Titanic salvage issue should be taken lightly, but it seems people do not mention what is truly described as grave robbing. Skulls and other assorted bones ( and should there have been bones on the Titanic- I guess we would really have something to crow about ) have been taken as 'collectibles' from the Empress of Ireland.
To me, that is crossing the line. I find that the lowest thing someone could do. I know some would say sidestepping the bones and taking a tea cup is equally wrong, but to me we are boiling down to the lesser of two evils.
And at this point- what can we do? Gather the artifacts and start tossing them off the side of ship back to the Titanic?
I think Walter Lord put it best when he said, " You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube ".
Now we should be concerned that the artifacts ( some of which are personal possesions ) get the proper care they deserve.
BTW, good post on the mummy Shell.

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Joe,

Get over yourself. The dialect I used was not racist. There's nothing demeaning in making jokes re: accents. I have used sterotyped "cowpoke" or "hillbilly" dialect as a joke & you never made any objection but the first time I do a stereotyped black southern dialect, you think it's racist.

Randy

 

[Inger Sheil]

Michael: The term 'Graverobbing' has been used to me by individuals who lost family members in the disaster. If you have a problem with the definition, take it up with them.

And at this point- what can we do? Gather the artifacts and start tossing them off the side of ship back to the Titanic?

Works for me.

I'm not going to condone the continuation of a process I feel is wrong simply because it has already commenced.

Inger

 

[Kritina Johnston]

I've had this vague notion that if someone were to set up some explosives at the site, that would take care of part of the matter. As for what has been brought up, perhaps setting everything on fire. It returns all the items back to their basic elements, and ultimately that's the most important concept in the universe. Returning to where all matter began.

Or perhaps that's too mystical. I don't know anything anymore I s'ppose.

 

[Geoff Whitfield]

I'm very much sitting on the fence over this issue.We've all raised sensible points and each individual ought to be respected for his/her views.For those who say that raising objects from the ship is wrong - there surely are those who would say that watching a film devoted to such an tragedy is equally wrong. This, surely, is even more voyeuristic than looking at salvaged articles.Those who are anti-salvage have a valid point about it being mawkish to display private items to the public - I for one would readily agree, but I do have to say that being able to see the exhibits at Greenwich, London, prior to the opening of the exhibition, and also seeing the Empress of Ireland exhibits at Rimouski, Canada, before the opening day, brought the tragedies of both these ships home to me in a manner in which no amount of reading could have done.I found both exhibitions humbling. I wonder though if those of us who do have a genuine passion for our chosen subject should feel as guilty as the guy who comes in from the street with his kids, knows nothing about the subject, buys the tacky sales material, goes home and forgets all about it? When I say "genuine passion" I am not, of course, referring to everybody involved in the salvage work but about that, enough said.
I can also agree with, and greatly respect Inger's attitude. I would like to be able to say that yes, I agree 100% with her, but human nature being what it is, I can't. I would like to be able to look the opposite way when passing any sort of accident, to turn off the television when I hear reports of some disaster, not to read the write ups in the newspapers etc. but I'm as guilty as most people.
I found Inger's comment about "why not just put it back over the side" too simplistic. Yes, it would be wonderful, but, some other guy is going to come straight along and bring it back up!
Well, these are my thoughts, I've tried not to offend anyone - hopefully I've succeeded!

 

[Mike Poirier]

Inger,
Frankly I don't see why you have so much ANGER when someone has a pro salvage view. Especially when it is not specifically directed at you. When I think anti-salvage, believe me when I say the first picture I conjour up is definitely not you. What I do see is a passionate group of people who are fighting for a common cause.
What I am pointing out is that there are worse types of salvage out there in the maritime community that we should be concerned about.
Like you did say, there are family members that find is horrifying. But on the other hand there are family memebers that are fascinated by it. And they are definitely not in the wrong. But then again, neither are the people you have talked with. In this discussion there are no right or wrong, just different aspects.

 

[Jan C. Nielsen]

Okay, Randy, sorry for the misunderstanding. Like someone pointed out before, on a message board, things can be perceived many different ways. I'm glad I was wrong on that.

With respect to the salvage, I've expressed my views on the salvage, at length . . . and I am very anti-salvage. As I see it, by getting buffs like Ken Marschall involved, and setting up PR such as the wreath throwing ceremony in 1996, RMS Titanic is really using sincere people (even victims of the disaster itself) to generate money for the company (even though the 1996 expedition was a loss, of sorts). Moreover, the PR work softens the impact of what they are doing, i.e., grave robbing.

George Tulloch may be genuinely sincere in his views. But the truth of what RMS Titanic is about was expressed by its shareholder, Joe Marsh, who holds the controlling interest (nearly 1/3 of the shares outstanding). He says Titanic is "a gold mine." Regardless of what anyone else says, it is people like Marsh whom RMS Titanic answers to in the end.

Further, like any corporation embroiled in a major controversy, they have a divide and conquer strategy - - and I think it's working, as one can see from the diversity of views among these posts. So long as people are divided in their views about this, RMS Titanic will continue its work.

Finally, so long as we maintain interest in Titanic, the salvage issue retains its vitality. As I've said before, RMS Titanic and its supporters are entertainers. My hope is that this last fiasco was such a money loser that the shareholders will get fed up, and want their money back.

Then, RMS Titanic will eventually go out of business by filing a Chapter 11 petition. The Bankruptcy court will put the assets of the company up for sale. Hopefully, it will approve a sale of the artifacts and salvage rights to a quality museum (because Judge Clarke will require that the artifacts remain together, and I think this condition will be maintained in the bankruptcy forum). If the artifacts are worth $10,000,000, as they are purported to be, then there should be enough left to pay shareholders some 50% or more of their investment. That would be a decent end to all of this.

 

[Tracey McIntire]

Hi Joe!

I totally agree. That sounds like a VERY happy ending to me! These artifacts should have been in a museum all along anyway. That way (hopefully) they will get the respect they deserve.

Tracey McIntire