When is salvaging from inside the wreck justified

The Smithsonian is filled with common everyday items. Proper retrieval, restoration and dignified display can be achieved by actual experts. Professionals certainly would never step knowingly in harms way. I do not advocate anybody getting hurt recovering a teacup or even a civil war cannon ball.

Michael you are absolutely right. The Titanics decay cannot be stopped. Thus my overly exaggerated example of the futility of watching so much history be buried under the collapsing hull.

If the Ballardites want protection of the Ship, then they had better stop fooling around with legal documents and get together with men like James Cameron and start filming more interior exploration. Because while everybody sits typing away the ship just keeps disappearing.

Science has brought us to a point where we can finally start to explorer this ship. Time is ticking.

And yes, I agree that there are plenty of "tacky" or "Wacky" things being done in the name of the ship. The Weddings at the wreck are not just silly, but dangerous. Common sense says that. Keeping ignorant tourists away from exhibits will never happen. Jack and Rose will live on forever. (Rolls eyes) If society wants to protect the good names of the Titanic passengers then we could start right at Ebay and the other various web sites and gift stores that hawk bizzarre items. Don't forget the Giant inflatable childrens' slide that looks like the sinking ship taking the plunge.

A final thought: Yes, this Pro vs. Anti debate will never convince either side to switch. But we all should be open minded to the reasons why people feel this way. So please, don't just say there in NO reason to do so. There obviously is. Whether it is practical or not, that is a completely different issue. We can be passionate about both sides of this without getting personal. I have friends who are Anti-Salvage. I still love them as the best we can do is agree to disagree.
 
>>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.<<

Well Eric, if you don't like it, you don't have to read it. What is "claptrap" in the eyes of one is a valid philisophical/moral point to another in this particular debate and which in turn is a belly laugh to those who think philosophical/moral points are just so much bunk no matter what they are. Since it is in no wise a violation of the rules, Magnus is within his rights to express it.

A quick glance tells me that the usual rheotoric is starting to fly about in this debate, and some of it quite inflammatory. Let's step away from that and stick to the points in controversy rather then resorting to cheap shots and lables such as "Ballardites", "Anti-Salvage people" and the like. I think there is a middle ground here, but nobody is going to find it by the usual tricks of rheotoric, baiting, and insult trading that's tended to come along with the deal.

Put an end to it or I will.
 
"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)"

Except that there is no evidence to justify such a position considering that no artifacts were ever put up on the auction block, contrary to what was argued by those as an excuse to attack the motives of those who engaged in salvage and who refused to acknowledge any degree of good intentions in their efforts. Since Robert Ballard is the only person who can ever be said to have "made money" off the Titanic, the dubiousness of this argument seems more evident to me.

"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?"

Quite simple. The crows nest collapsed because of age, just like the gym roof has collapsed because of natural age and deterioration in the years since 1986. Ballard claimed the crows nest was destroyed "undoubtedly in the act of getting at the telephone". This was a lie, because there was no telephone recovered from the crows nest and his own 1985 and 1986 pictures show there was no telephone to recover from the crows nest. Then the spin went out that it collapsed from recovering the bell, but again his own pictures show no bell in the crows nest in 1985 and RMSTI's pictures show both bell and telephone recovered from the debris field. As for the argument it collapsed because of retrieving the masthead light, since that is far up the mast and nowhere near the crows nest itself, the dubiousness of that argument speaks for itself. The bottom line is that Ballard's comment about the telephonen was a lie and that has been proved by the factual record of evidence (you are welcome to a copy of the phone lying in the debris field, which can't be posted here due to copyright restrictions).

"Oh, and please explain the damages clearly made by subs found during Ballard's latest expedition?"

If you're going to raise that issue, it sounds like you should have a bigger complaint with the Cameron expeditions, so why are you singling out RMSTI?

"I don't try and force my opinion on anyone"

I think anyone who demonizes the fine work of museum exhibitions like those of the Titanic artifacts and who try to push un-Constitutional legislation to waste the taxpayers money on the policing of shipwrecks in international waters are trying to force their opinions on the rest of us, and that is a position I will gladly oppose as strongly as I can. Especially since the advocates of the gravesite argument never once resorted to this dubious position for a single shipwreck before the Titanic.

"it seems that all you want to do is flame people who doesn't think the way you do."

Your comments I believe flamed unjustly a whole class of fine people who have done a fine job in preserving the legacy of a great ship and when you slur them, you are by extension IMO slurring me and everyone else who came away touched by those exhibitions and felt grateful for what they achieved and accomplished.
 
This will be my (perhaps) final post regarding my position (as I already have expressed it) but I feel that I must make some clarifications. First of all, Eric. We're both members of democratic societies (I'm Swedish and you're clearly American) and as such, we should be able to use arguments (like you did in your #320 post above), not flaming, to discuss the matter. I've already made it clear that I'm not trying to convince anyone, I merely expressed my opinion. I respect your view, although I don't agree with it. I understand that there are thousands of people out there who want to view those artifacts and I respect that, but I'm not one of those people. To me, the tragic events of the 14th and 15th of April 1912 is more than watching artifacts.

Ok, regarding your first counter argument, making money, RMSTI has recovered coal (which I have no objection to) from the ocean floor for the sole purpose of financing other expeditions. It has also been reported in the media that RMSTI tried to obtain legal right to sell artifacts, but the court denied the company that right. The case went to the appeals court which ruled that RMSTI does not have a right to the artifacts.

About the crows nest. I never said that the incident was connected with the retrieval of the masthead lantern, I merely pointed out that the crows nest was missing in what seems to be a later stage of the '87 expedition. Naturally, I can't say that RMSTI destroyed or damaged the crows nest (I don't think that any damage during any expedition was intentional), and nothing conclusively can be said in this matter.

Regarding current damage to Titanic and that I singled RMSTI out, did I write that "RMSTI damaged the Titanic during their expeditions"? No! There has been all sorts of expeditions to Titanic, tourism and artifact retrieval not performed by RMSTI. My intention was not to point the finger at RMSTI. I'm sorry if my post made that impression and I apologize if you took offense. Cameron's expeditions to Titanic has, in my opinion, been performed very admirably. While I don't like his movie, Cameron clearly understands how deep sea exploration should be done.

As I said, I consider the wrecksite to be a grave, like I do with all wrecks. I would like to relate my view to a present day event. In 1994, the ferry Estonia sank on its voyage between Tallinn, Estonia and Stockholm, Sweden with the loss of 852 people, mostly Swedes (501 out of 550 on board) and Estonians (280 out of 344 on board). Only 137 persons in total was saved. The decision was taken by the Swedish, Estonian and Finnish governments that the wreck is to be considered a grave site and that the site would be policed to prevent unauthorized diving. I can't imagine that some 90 years from now that someone would dive to this wreck for artifact retrieval and showcase them in northern Europe just because 90 years have passed. It's exactly the same way I feel about the Titanic. It's a grave site.
I respect your view that the retrieval of artifacts from the Titanic is done in order to protect them, although I don't agree on the motive. I won't discuss your political and economical view on the matter, but I wouldn't go so far as saying that the new treaty is unconstitutional.

And about me slurring you, no. As I've said, you're entitled to your view and I am entitled to mine.
I do hope that the hostile tone between us could be reduced somewhat, Eric.
 
All this just shows what a hot potato this subject is.

There is much emotion on both sides and each of us has a right to those feelings. My own particular reasons for being opposed to salvage have nothing whatever to do with supporting Ballard, of whom I have made it clear I am no fan, or with any exclusive regard for Titanic's dead as I am just as opposed to grave-robbing at any other wreck site. The Lusitania and Empress of Ireland, etc., also need to be protected; I have the same indignation at the exploitation and plundering they have suffered.

My opinion of the attitude of the general public toward these travelling artifact exhibitions is based on personal experience, both as a paying attendee and as a reporter. I witnessed chewing-gum chomping kids whiz through the exhibit to get to the food stalls at the other end, I heard people discussing "The Movie" and even speculating about whether the items were real or from a film set. The layout of the items was also accompanied by incorrect names and garbled facts on identification cards. The ultimate "pay off" for the exhibitors, apart from overpriced tickets, was the gift shop, swarming with customers buying every conceivable product from coffee mugs to dolls of Captain Smith. I stand by what I said about these exhibits being raree shows.

My anti-salvage stance was initially arrived at from a simple gut feeling that this was an exploitative approach to preserving the history of the ship. It hasn't altered all these years. It has only been compounded by the feelings expressed to me by descendants of Titanic people with whom I have befriended in my research.

True, not all survivors or their relatives are against salvage. But the descendant that I grew to know and love was very opposed to it. Lucy Duff Gordon's late grandson, Tony Halsbury, thought it was criminal and was ready to take action should his family be exploited. I quote the following from a letter from him in 1998:

"..I should say that it is wrong for these things from the grave to be carted about and stuck under glass for people to look at. You may say that I am opposed to it and if any possessions of my dear grandmother are retrieved and displayed, I will make sure they are removed..." (Anthony, 3rd Earl of Halsbury, F.R.S., letter to the author, 18 June 1998)
 
>>About the crows nest. I never said that the incident was connected with the retrieval of the masthead lantern, I merely pointed out that the crows nest was missing in what seems to be a later stage of the '87 expedition. Naturally, I can't say that RMSTI destroyed or damaged the crows nest (I don't think that any damage during any expedition was intentional), and nothing conclusively can be said in this matter. <<

In all fairness Magnus, what you said was "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?"

While unstated, it can easily be taken to mean that there's an underlying accusation there against the purported "Bad Guys." Other parties haven't troubled themselves to make statements with hidden meanings but have stated explicitly that RMSTI had deliberately or through negligence done damage to the ship. You can even see such right here in this forum if you backcheck through some of the older threads.

>>I do hope that the hostile tone between us could be reduced somewhat, Eric.<<

So do I as the acrimony serves no useful purpose and both you and Eric are tending to personalize this matter. Befor anybody replies further to this thread, kindly step back, take a breath, count to ten (thousand)...whatever works...and keep the personalities out of it.
 
"Ok, regarding your first counter argument, making money, RMSTI has recovered coal (which I have no objection to) from the ocean floor for the sole purpose of financing other expeditions."

Your argument falls apart in your own statement above. The coal sales were to cover costs of more exploring and expedition costs, which means the proceeds were being put back in for a useful purpose and not to line the bank accounts of any one man or group of men (unlike Robert Ballard and his cushy book deals and lecture fees and camera-hog exposure on TV).

"It has also been reported in the media that RMSTI tried to obtain legal right to sell artifacts, but the court denied the company that right. The case went to the appeals court which ruled that RMSTI does not have a right to the artifacts."

The issue was never one of their right to sell individual artifacts on the auction block to private collectors according to the scenario painted by anti-salvors since 1987.

"About the crows nest. I never said that the incident was connected with the retrieval of the masthead lantern, I merely pointed out that the crows nest was missing in what seems to be a later stage of the '87 expedition. Naturally, I can't say that RMSTI destroyed or damaged the crows nest"

Sorry, but your attempt to defend Robert Ballard in your previous post reveals otherwise. That was an attempt to defend his remark that based on the facts surrounding the recovery of all three objects is indefensible and for which he has never been held accountable for, and for which the lie remains in print in all current and future editions of his book. What can be said conclusively about this matter is that Robert Ballard deliberately lied and distorted in order to throw mud at RMSTI and the principle of salvage for the sake of pure grandstanding.

"It's exactly the same way I feel about the Titanic. It's a grave site."

There have been no human remains disturbed for the sake of retrieving an artifact unlike the case of the Monitor a couple years ago, and for which Robert Ballard uttered not one syllable of protest. Artifact recovery from the Andrea Doria and Lusitania was never objected to either.

From my standpoint, if the "gravesite" argument had any validity to it, then as far as I'm concerned there should be no dives to the wreck period because if it's wrong to recover an isolated piece of debris that wasn't next to any human remains and look at it in a museum, then it's also wrong to go down and gawk at those items on the ocean floor. That becomes little more than cheap voyeurism IMO if you think it's okay to look but not recover and let others see them with their own eyes (as opposed to letting only the elites who can afford million dollar sub dives be the only ones who can see them).

"But I wouldn't go so far as saying that the new treaty is unconstitutional."

Well this is a matter of the difference between our two countries. The United States Constitution is based on the premise of limiting the powers of the state, and only granting them specific powers, and one power that is not the business of the state is assuming jurisdiction over wrecks in international waters and using the tax money of American citizens to force the policing of such wrecks to achieve that end. Only in American territorial waters would they have a legitimate right to do so.
 
I won't take this any further in this thread, but I feel that I should ask everyone for an apology who has taken offense, since it wasn't my intention to accuse the RMSTI of anything, I think it has to do with lacking grammar from my part. My aim wasn't to try to use a hidden meaning deliberately or to imply that RMSTI made any intentional damage. I think that RMSTI thought their cause to be noble, but again, I don't agree with it.
For the record, I don't try to defend Ballard. The only thing I've read by him is his book about the discovery of the Titanic (I think it's simply called Discovery in English, I've only read a translated version). I've also seen a brief documentary made shortly after the discovery and a documentary on Ballard's expeditions to the Britannic. In fact, I know very little what he has said about the expeditions and what he's said after 1986.
 
"But the descendant that I grew to know and love was very opposed to it. Lucy Duff Gordon's late grandson, Tony Halsbury, thought it was criminal and was ready to take action should his family be exploited. I quote the following from a letter from him in 1998:"

Frankly, he wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. If his grandmother accepted payment from an insurance company for loss of property in 1912, then whoever spends their own money to salvage any such object has the legal right to do whatever they please with it. A more conciliatory attitude about not wanting something to be displayed would go a lot further in that instance.

With regards to the attitude of people in an exhibition that is used to blast the artifact ones, consistency would require taking the same approach with ones like Orlando because that relies almost exclusively on movie props and set pieces and a gift shop with no salvaged artifacts whatsoever. To say that an artificat exhibition is the only place where that kind of attitude among visitors would exist is a very weak argument IMO.
 
Frankly, your insensitivity is astonishing. But you're right, Tony wouldn't have a leg to stand on, since he died 4 years ago of a catastrophic stroke. I think you've expressed your opinion clearly enough. I am supportive of your right to feel as you do and don't need to try and change your view. But kindly be more respectful of others' feelings, please.
 
I think my POV on the matter of frivolous litigation designed to sully the reputations of people and an organization that has already had its reputation sullied enough over the last 17 years is more than legit, and I don't consider that view "insensitive" in the least bit. If you want to make a point about how a certain survivor's descendant would go that route rather than make a dignified, conciliatory appeal in the event a specific item like that were found, then those like me who find that kind of conduct appalling also have a right to make that point.
 
Gentleman, My exaggerated statement earlier was to stimulate conversation and show how silly people can sound when they don't acknowledge both parties views. Eric and I have hopefully at least shed some light on the fact that some people feel more connected to seeing artifacts than reproduced props. Or that mere blurry photographs can provide.

Randy and Magnus are no doubt passionate that the Titanic should be a look but don't touch area to not offend families of the passengers. Both sides have plenty of points to convey. I hope people on both sides have learned more about the others point of view. I know I have. Has it changed my opinion? No. But reading some of the thoughts here, plus a few sent to me privately have made me more aware of the reasons behind them. And that is a good thing.

But alas, even I feel this thread will just continue to self destruct. So perhaps since I opened this pandoras box, I ask everybody to "agree to disagree" and we voluntarily close this thread.
 
Let's play a game>

I'll place a quote here, and let's see who can identify who said it and when. Here goes:

"My feeling would be more of one there is a tremendous desire on the part of the people of the world to see the Titanic in somewhat of a more tangible way than the way we are presenting it to date with images. I do believe that there is a tremendous amount of material in this debris area that has no real important significance, laying scattered all over the ocean floor.
Like I say, I am in favor of the recovery of that material probably with manned submarines, to ensure they are protected and the public and the world have the ability to touch or so to speak, and feel the ship."

Okay, which survivor or salvager said this?
 

Similar threads

Shelley Dziedzic
Pirates at the Wreck
5 6
Replies
84
Views
9K
Michael H. Standart
M
D
Taking more artifacts from the wreck
8 9
Replies
133
Views
10K
Ralph Cook
R
Phillip Gowan
Attempt At Pirating the Wreck
2
Replies
24
Views
8K
Michael H. Standart
M
T
So exhibiting artifacts found at the surface is okay but anything from the wreck is ghoulish HOW
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Dick Jackson Roe II
D
B
Mail Bags In Wreck
2
Replies
19
Views
5K
Brandon Whited
B
Back
Top