Eric Paddon
Member
Actually what I'm referring to is the idea that Ballard didn't develop an ant-salvage position until he saw those boots/shoes, and thus tries to explain his Congressional testimony by suggesting he was only pro-salvage up to that point when he saw the shoes.
But the reason that doesn't hold water is because he was spouting the exact same anti-salvage position *before* his Congressional testimony and it was the *only* position on salvage that he ever expressed publicly in the period 1985-86. I have on videotape the interviews he gave via phone from the wrecksite the day after the ship was discovered and in each of those conversations he is pushing the "gravesite" argument as a reason to not salvage. This is capped off by his appearance on the CBS Morning News on September 10 when he states that people would rather see photographs of the interior than artifacts brought up.
Then suddenly, away from TV cameras, he says something else before Congress, but in 1986, back before TV cameras, he goes back to the "gravesite" argument.
The only way Ballard's Congressional testimony makes any sense to me whatsoever in the context of what he said before and after it in public, is that in a more private setting, he had to acknowledge the possibility of long-range artifact recovery, but until that took place he was going to keep grandstanding in public about the "gravesite" in an effort to perhaps scare off anyone else from partaking in a salvage expedition. Once IFREMER went ahead with their plans though, it became convenient for Ballard to fall back on his public TV statements and create a false impression with many gullible people (like me) that this represented the only view on salvage he'd ever expressed from day one. That was the view I operated under for ten years from 1985 to 1995 because I still have those 1985 TV interviews on tape and watched them dozens of times in the first year after they happened, so I always had the impression of Ballard being consistent on this matter even if for a viewpoint I opposed.
That was why when I discovered the existence of his Congressional testimony and read what he said I was shocked beyond belief to see him making the case for salvage under the exact same guidelines that artifacts were being recovered by and saying this *after* his TV interviews to the contrary.
I believe that as Tarn has said (I believe he has expressed this) that what Ballard really wanted was clear sailing for himself to control things that he didn't want to do until much later on but because someone else beat him to it and did it earlier than he himself would have done, he decided to wrap himself up in the mantle of sanctimony, and if that meant trying to pretend he never made those remarks before Congress (they are not mentioned in his book) so be it.
But the reason that doesn't hold water is because he was spouting the exact same anti-salvage position *before* his Congressional testimony and it was the *only* position on salvage that he ever expressed publicly in the period 1985-86. I have on videotape the interviews he gave via phone from the wrecksite the day after the ship was discovered and in each of those conversations he is pushing the "gravesite" argument as a reason to not salvage. This is capped off by his appearance on the CBS Morning News on September 10 when he states that people would rather see photographs of the interior than artifacts brought up.
Then suddenly, away from TV cameras, he says something else before Congress, but in 1986, back before TV cameras, he goes back to the "gravesite" argument.
The only way Ballard's Congressional testimony makes any sense to me whatsoever in the context of what he said before and after it in public, is that in a more private setting, he had to acknowledge the possibility of long-range artifact recovery, but until that took place he was going to keep grandstanding in public about the "gravesite" in an effort to perhaps scare off anyone else from partaking in a salvage expedition. Once IFREMER went ahead with their plans though, it became convenient for Ballard to fall back on his public TV statements and create a false impression with many gullible people (like me) that this represented the only view on salvage he'd ever expressed from day one. That was the view I operated under for ten years from 1985 to 1995 because I still have those 1985 TV interviews on tape and watched them dozens of times in the first year after they happened, so I always had the impression of Ballard being consistent on this matter even if for a viewpoint I opposed.
That was why when I discovered the existence of his Congressional testimony and read what he said I was shocked beyond belief to see him making the case for salvage under the exact same guidelines that artifacts were being recovered by and saying this *after* his TV interviews to the contrary.
I believe that as Tarn has said (I believe he has expressed this) that what Ballard really wanted was clear sailing for himself to control things that he didn't want to do until much later on but because someone else beat him to it and did it earlier than he himself would have done, he decided to wrap himself up in the mantle of sanctimony, and if that meant trying to pretend he never made those remarks before Congress (they are not mentioned in his book) so be it.
