Another expedition
- Thread starter AL Glover
- Start date
- Status
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
>>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.
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.
>>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?
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.
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
hello all DIDN'T mean to make arguments,but parks, should say U R WRONG, when you said,
""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 ship building better or transiting the Atlantic safer,
because Titanic belonged to another technological age""
but we have learned from this horrible accident thats why NOW we have
(1) the coast guard international ice patrol, to keep icebergs out of shipping lanes,
(2) 24 hours radio watch or alerts on ship, in case one gets in trouble,
(3) lifeboats for all,
also you mentioned in another post reply
""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"'
IF U have never seen what "we" as professionals, (yes i'am a retired airline crew-chief mechanic" have had to go through when putting a plane back togeather,(you still can smell the many smells,fuel,flesh,& see,all of the same,)u have earthly idea what it is like,
the reason is two fold for more publicity when a "bird" goes down,is because
(A) so many lives are lost at one time in a split second,
(B) some places where a plane went down are "protected" & people do get mad, in N.C. forrest,when a 737 went down there are places & memorials set up,all over the USA & around the world where certain flights went down these sites were set up by the survivors themselves, and are considered (as the titanic) a memorial to those lost,and reguardless of ship,plane,bus accident we learn something by reconstructing those last minutes to find out what went wrong,nothing against you personally,but you were wrong when you said we do not learn,
""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 ship building better or transiting the Atlantic safer,
because Titanic belonged to another technological age""
but we have learned from this horrible accident thats why NOW we have
(1) the coast guard international ice patrol, to keep icebergs out of shipping lanes,
(2) 24 hours radio watch or alerts on ship, in case one gets in trouble,
(3) lifeboats for all,
also you mentioned in another post reply
""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"'
IF U have never seen what "we" as professionals, (yes i'am a retired airline crew-chief mechanic" have had to go through when putting a plane back togeather,(you still can smell the many smells,fuel,flesh,& see,all of the same,)u have earthly idea what it is like,
the reason is two fold for more publicity when a "bird" goes down,is because
(A) so many lives are lost at one time in a split second,
(B) some places where a plane went down are "protected" & people do get mad, in N.C. forrest,when a 737 went down there are places & memorials set up,all over the USA & around the world where certain flights went down these sites were set up by the survivors themselves, and are considered (as the titanic) a memorial to those lost,and reguardless of ship,plane,bus accident we learn something by reconstructing those last minutes to find out what went wrong,nothing against you personally,but you were wrong when you said we do not learn,
Al,
Before you call me "wrong," consider this:
First of all, I am talking about 2005 when I say that there's not much we can learn from Titanic in the shipbuilding art. I am not referring to what we learned immediately after the disaster.
Second, you may be a retired arline crew-chief mechanic, but I am a retired naval aviator. You can include me in your list of "professionals" who can speak on the subject. I have also been a primary investigator for aircraft mishap boards. And I never said that we could never learn from aircraft mishaps...I said instead that we never close off a crash site and declare it a memorial to the dead...what we do instead is pick apart the remains to try and learn what happened. I used that as an example of why I don't believe that modern explorers should be prohibited from penetrating the wreck, as you have argued for.
Nothing personal, but please try to understand what I am saying before you call me wrong.
Parks
Before you call me "wrong," consider this:
First of all, I am talking about 2005 when I say that there's not much we can learn from Titanic in the shipbuilding art. I am not referring to what we learned immediately after the disaster.
Second, you may be a retired arline crew-chief mechanic, but I am a retired naval aviator. You can include me in your list of "professionals" who can speak on the subject. I have also been a primary investigator for aircraft mishap boards. And I never said that we could never learn from aircraft mishaps...I said instead that we never close off a crash site and declare it a memorial to the dead...what we do instead is pick apart the remains to try and learn what happened. I used that as an example of why I don't believe that modern explorers should be prohibited from penetrating the wreck, as you have argued for.
Nothing personal, but please try to understand what I am saying before you call me wrong.
Parks
ah soooo "Parks", then i DO APOLOGIZE, now that you explained, (or I mis understood)""I am talking about 2005 when I say that there's not much
we can learn from Titanic""
true I believe the "SHIP" has given up all her secrets,but still think, as many that the "SHIP' is a grave site & should not be entered-look, but don't touch or remove-
don't believe that modern explorers should be prohibited from penetrating the wreck,
but the salvage team is going to take what they want & Ballad was wrong ,as i am sure he realizes now, that he should have, claimed ownership/exclusive rights to the titanic at the time of discovery,,,
we can learn from Titanic""
true I believe the "SHIP" has given up all her secrets,but still think, as many that the "SHIP' is a grave site & should not be entered-look, but don't touch or remove-
don't believe that modern explorers should be prohibited from penetrating the wreck,
but the salvage team is going to take what they want & Ballad was wrong ,as i am sure he realizes now, that he should have, claimed ownership/exclusive rights to the titanic at the time of discovery,,,
Al,
"I am talking about 2005 when I say that there's not much
we can learn from Titanic." Quote me completely, please, or you will lose the context. The rest of the quote is "I am talking about 2005 when I say that there's not much we can learn from Titanic in the shipbuilding art." Those last four words are key to my intent.
You certainly are quick to call people wrong. Now you say that Dr. Ballard was wrong in not claiming ownership/exclusive rights at the time of discovery. In order to claim a salvor-in-possession status (the legal term used by the courts), a claimant has to prove that he can retrieve artefacts from the wreck on more than one occasion. In fact, the current salvor-in-possession, RMST, is required by law to periodically retrieve artefacts from the site in order to retain their salvor status. Dr. Ballard has never had the capability to retrieve artefacts from the Titanic wrecksite during his expeditions. He has examined the wreck with ROVs and sleds that have carried only photographic equipment. Given his current mantra, the collection of artefacts runs counter to his philosophy. If you want to question his choices, fine, but I don't believe that your calling Ballard "wrong" in this regard is warranted.
You and I will continue to disagree about the Titanic wreck being a gravesite. I will say this, though...no verifiable human remains have been found anywhere near the wrecksite. There are artefacts (like shoes and a slicker) that may point to a body have settled there at some time. But, consider this...nothing of that sort has ever been found inside the wreck itself. All such instances have been found on the ocean floor outside the wreck, where the courts have allowed RMST to recover artefacts without restriction. So, until such time as it can be proven that human remains exist inside the wreck itself, I don't understand how you can claim that the "SHIP" is a grave site.
I also disagree that the "SHIP" has given up all her secrets. People thought that before 2001 and we learned so much that year. People thought that again before 2004 and we're still picking nuggets of new information from the images captured that summer. If you want to believe that the "SHIP" has nothing new to teach us, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I, for one, don't share that opinion, so please excuse me while I continue to look for what the wreck still has to tell us.
In my view, the wreck still has much to tell us about the manner in which the ship sank and how the people aboard her lived and died. I believe that the way to honour the dead is to continue to listen to what the wreck has to tell us. Conversely, to leave the wreck unexplored is to turn one's back on the complete story of the disaster, in my opinion.
Parks
"I am talking about 2005 when I say that there's not much
we can learn from Titanic." Quote me completely, please, or you will lose the context. The rest of the quote is "I am talking about 2005 when I say that there's not much we can learn from Titanic in the shipbuilding art." Those last four words are key to my intent.
You certainly are quick to call people wrong. Now you say that Dr. Ballard was wrong in not claiming ownership/exclusive rights at the time of discovery. In order to claim a salvor-in-possession status (the legal term used by the courts), a claimant has to prove that he can retrieve artefacts from the wreck on more than one occasion. In fact, the current salvor-in-possession, RMST, is required by law to periodically retrieve artefacts from the site in order to retain their salvor status. Dr. Ballard has never had the capability to retrieve artefacts from the Titanic wrecksite during his expeditions. He has examined the wreck with ROVs and sleds that have carried only photographic equipment. Given his current mantra, the collection of artefacts runs counter to his philosophy. If you want to question his choices, fine, but I don't believe that your calling Ballard "wrong" in this regard is warranted.
You and I will continue to disagree about the Titanic wreck being a gravesite. I will say this, though...no verifiable human remains have been found anywhere near the wrecksite. There are artefacts (like shoes and a slicker) that may point to a body have settled there at some time. But, consider this...nothing of that sort has ever been found inside the wreck itself. All such instances have been found on the ocean floor outside the wreck, where the courts have allowed RMST to recover artefacts without restriction. So, until such time as it can be proven that human remains exist inside the wreck itself, I don't understand how you can claim that the "SHIP" is a grave site.
I also disagree that the "SHIP" has given up all her secrets. People thought that before 2001 and we learned so much that year. People thought that again before 2004 and we're still picking nuggets of new information from the images captured that summer. If you want to believe that the "SHIP" has nothing new to teach us, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I, for one, don't share that opinion, so please excuse me while I continue to look for what the wreck still has to tell us.
In my view, the wreck still has much to tell us about the manner in which the ship sank and how the people aboard her lived and died. I believe that the way to honour the dead is to continue to listen to what the wreck has to tell us. Conversely, to leave the wreck unexplored is to turn one's back on the complete story of the disaster, in my opinion.
Parks
>>So, until such time as it can be proven that human remains exist inside the wreck itself, I don't understand how you can claim that the "SHIP" is a grave site.<<
Parks,
Please excuse my intercession here, but I feel I must comment:
You say that there are no signs of bodily remains inside the ship. To this I am not in dispute. It has been 93 years, and with the vast plethora of organisms living at the bottom of ocean, it's no wonder why you haven't found anything remaining of the physical dead. But that doesn't mean that many of those who died didn't go down inside the ship. On the contrary, there is evidence to substantiate that many had. This makes this, then, the site of the dead. Besides, considering what happened that night, it's unreasonable to presume that everybody got out. There were hundreds of third-class still in the stern and died there. Again, this makes the Titanic itself a place where people died, hence a grave site.
Even several survivors, including Eva Hart, before she died back in 1998, said that it was a grave site (the ship itself) and should be left alone.
Furthermore, lack of proof does not confirm that people didn't die inside the ship, as there is evidence as to why there may not be any apparent evidence of the first. All that lack of evidence signifies is that there is no evidence (although I disagree that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate that people died inside the ship).
>>In my view, the wreck still has much to tell us about the manner in which the ship sank and how the people aboard her lived and died. I believe that the way to honour the dead is to continue to listen to what the wreck has to tell us.<<
Oh, I agree! There's much more we can learn from her, but, unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll learn everything that happened aboard her or regarding the sinking. We, for example, will never know where exactly Elizabeth Isham was when she met her fate, nor will we determine the location of the fates of so many other of those who died, such as Hudson and Bess Allison and Little Lourraine or Quig Baxter... There is only so much we can learn from the wreck, and I believe that we haven't yet learned everything. Even more, after the ship crumbles to dust, there will be no way of learning anything further, because there will not be any ship left to explore. That's why it's important to study as much as we can now. Still, When Titanic is read to give up her still-undiscovered secrets, she will. As contradictory as it sounds, just give it time.
As for honouring the dead, there's so much more we can do, and that doesn't necessarily conclude with salvaging that which lies inside the wreck, although I do agree with you regarding the wireless apparatus....
Parks,
Please excuse my intercession here, but I feel I must comment:
You say that there are no signs of bodily remains inside the ship. To this I am not in dispute. It has been 93 years, and with the vast plethora of organisms living at the bottom of ocean, it's no wonder why you haven't found anything remaining of the physical dead. But that doesn't mean that many of those who died didn't go down inside the ship. On the contrary, there is evidence to substantiate that many had. This makes this, then, the site of the dead. Besides, considering what happened that night, it's unreasonable to presume that everybody got out. There were hundreds of third-class still in the stern and died there. Again, this makes the Titanic itself a place where people died, hence a grave site.
Even several survivors, including Eva Hart, before she died back in 1998, said that it was a grave site (the ship itself) and should be left alone.
Furthermore, lack of proof does not confirm that people didn't die inside the ship, as there is evidence as to why there may not be any apparent evidence of the first. All that lack of evidence signifies is that there is no evidence (although I disagree that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate that people died inside the ship).
>>In my view, the wreck still has much to tell us about the manner in which the ship sank and how the people aboard her lived and died. I believe that the way to honour the dead is to continue to listen to what the wreck has to tell us.<<
Oh, I agree! There's much more we can learn from her, but, unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll learn everything that happened aboard her or regarding the sinking. We, for example, will never know where exactly Elizabeth Isham was when she met her fate, nor will we determine the location of the fates of so many other of those who died, such as Hudson and Bess Allison and Little Lourraine or Quig Baxter... There is only so much we can learn from the wreck, and I believe that we haven't yet learned everything. Even more, after the ship crumbles to dust, there will be no way of learning anything further, because there will not be any ship left to explore. That's why it's important to study as much as we can now. Still, When Titanic is read to give up her still-undiscovered secrets, she will. As contradictory as it sounds, just give it time.
As for honouring the dead, there's so much more we can do, and that doesn't necessarily conclude with salvaging that which lies inside the wreck, although I do agree with you regarding the wireless apparatus....
- Status
