Ballard's plan

May 12, 2005
3,109
1
108
Great story, Marc! Thanks for sharing it. Good to see it acknowledged that Ballard WAS in favor of salvage "then changed his mind." Now he is to be a maritime curator? Ah, the Vicissitudes of Ballard.
 

Steve Smith

Member
Mar 20, 2011
151
0
46
He talked about doing this "underwater museum" thing at the time of the original discovery of Titanic. Then he was going to do it with Lusitania.... then it was going to be Brittanic...
Hopefully THIS time it'll actually happen.
 
Apr 14, 2001
160
0
146
marc thank you for sharing this news about dr ballard i am glad that hes thinking about the titanic after all these years and i hope that his project will be very successful and i also think its great news for all titanic fans and for those who never heard of the titanic and will learn from this project and i wish him all the best on his future plans for the titanic and on all the other projects he is doing that doesnt have to do with the titanic jennifer mueller ps i have his book about the discovery of the titanic and i liked it
 
May 8, 2001
1,359
2
166
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I was under the impression he was still eyeing the Britanic, and had grand plans, with the permission of Simon Mills and the Greek Government, to remotely access the ship, when time and money allowed....
 

Steve Smith

Member
Mar 20, 2011
151
0
46
Colleen -

I thought that too... but in another thread a while back someone (Mark Chirnside I think) said Simon Mills had heard nothing further from Dr B after the initial idea was mooted. Sounds now like he's back on Titanic!
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
533
16
148
"``We found absolutely not a single soul that saw value in salvaging this site,'' Ballard recalled."

Robert Ballard is once again playing fast and loose with the truth.

On the day after he returned from the Titanic wreck in 1985, Ballard appeared on the CBS Morning News with Louise Pope. Louise, sitting beside Ballard, was asked by Maria Shriver whether items should be salvaged said she had no objections to seeing "the jewels and valuables brought up" and Shriver's final question was "If there's one thing you'd like most that you lost what would it be?" Louise with a smile and chuckle said, "My bicycle."

It seems like one could compile a whole book devoted to the peculiar and enigmatic inconsistencies of Robert Ballard down through the years.
 
Feb 14, 2011
2,447
3
68
Dr. Ballard has done wonders in promoting deep sea exploartion, and I applaud him for that..

But, I still get the impression he feels only he is worthy of diving on the wreck...

His self rightous suggestion that all the recovered artifacts should be returned to the wreck was an interesting thing for him to say,concidering he once voiced favor of artifact recovery..
But someone else beat him to the punch, and I believe his venemous opposition to artifact recovery is simply a case a sour grapes..


Tarn Stephanos
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
533
16
148
"Ballard's preference: Put the artifacts back where they came from. ``If the company is willing to deliver them here,'' Ballard said, ``I would be willing to take them back.''

This part of the article I hadn't noticed before, but reading it really makes my blood boil in disgust once again (as it often has over the years when it comes to Robert Ballard's many exercises in pompous, self-righteous arrogance). For him to not get over it after 15 years and acknowledge that there are thousands of people who have been moved and touched by the displays of these artifacts, and to oppose them in a MUSEUM setting for goodness sake, only shows that his mindset is no different than that of a Japanese sailor on Guam who still wants to keep fighting World War II all these years later.

No doubt, Ballard wants to get back into Titanic once again so he can have an excuse to write another overpriced book with no new information of any relevance whatsoever and stiff people once again with big lecture fees where he can trumpet himself as "the man who found Titanic."
 

Mark Taylor

Member
Mar 18, 2005
52
0
76
It is amazing. Ballard proposes setting up remote controlled submersibles so that people on land can view the remains of Titanic. Now one can debate whether this is good or bad thing or if this can really work (given our technological advances it certainly is feasible).

Ballard's views on Titanic, salvage and on other matters are well known. And each time Bob Ballard's name comes up in a forum and Mr. Paddon is around, one can look forward to the posts that tell us how disgusted he is with Ballard. :)

Ballard's views on salvage (whether you agree with them or not is up to you) are not an issue here but his bold plan to let people see Titanic without having to dive down. It is an interesting plan. He certainly has the ability to put it together. Just think, if it works people will be able to view the wreck via underwater submersible. Jules Verne would be envious.
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
533
16
148
If Ballard is still going to play an active role in trying to prevent artifacts from ending up in certain museums, as the article pointed out he is, and if he is still going to make remarks promoting vandalism by saying they should be returned to the sea, then his salvage views do reamin an issue in the overall context, especially when he keeps making other remarks that don't square with the factual record.

As for the ability to view wrecks via remote, I have never thought much of the idea because the logistics involved can not possibly allow for anything other than fixed locale viewings that would get tiresomely repetitive after the first viewing, not to mention the fact that the amateur at home is not going to be given responsibility for maneuvering such subs into out of the way areas that we have not seen before. In short, I only see Ballard wanting to spend a ton of money so people can end up having the same view of something we've seen in so many movies and books live like an overhead shot of the foredeck and the bridge, which isn't all that significant to me anyway (especially given the limits of what kind of clear picture one can see over the Internet anyway, and in order to justify the costs, there's no way this kind of service would be free or not subscriber oriented to try and make up costs, unless Ballard is going to use public funding for this)

Some people might be wowed by the thought of seeing Titanic live on their computer. To me, it's no different then seeing any other murky picture of Titanic and another reminder of why no video or picture can ever substitute for the impact of seeing artifacts live with one's own eyes unfiltered by video or film.
 

Mark Taylor

Member
Mar 18, 2005
52
0
76
"If Ballard is still going to play an active role in trying to prevent artifacts from ending up in certain museums, as the article pointed out he is.... then his salvage views do reamin an issue in the overall context, especially when he keeps making other remarks that don't square with the factual record. "

What he says and what he can do are two different things. Ballard has no control over the artifacts and no say in their ultimate disposition, which is up to a court as you well know. As to viewing the wreck, your views are noted but others may find viewing the wreck more interesting and enjoy doing so.

As for money, I believe it will be part of his Jason Project which is a non-profit foundation and does receive some government grants (but I am not totally sure on this one).
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
1
148
"Ballard has no control over the artifacts and no say in their ultimate disposition, which is up to a court as you well know. As to viewing the wreck, your views are noted but others may find viewing the wreck more interesting and enjoy doing so."

Agreed. Most of the time I've found Mr. Paddon's remarks pretty distasteful, in my opinion. Wherever there's a thread concerning Cameron's Titanic film, Dr. Ballard, or salvage in general, Eric seems to be present to make his voice known.

As for the subject at hand, I would also agree that viewing the wrecksite in situ would be more fulfilling than seeing items displayed in a traveling exhibit. While it's just my own opinion, I believe context is just as important as the artifacts themselves.

Hopefully, Dr. Ballard will be able to do something with the Titanic like a telepresence opportunity similar to the Jason Project. Still, I can't help but wonder what's happened to the plans for an underwater museum around the Britannic wreck. The only thing that comes to mind is lack of interest.


Adam
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
533
16
148
"Agreed. Most of the time I've found Mr. Paddon's remarks pretty distasteful, in my opinion. Wherever there's a thread concerning Cameron's Titanic film, Dr. Ballard, or salvage in general, Eric seems to be present to make his voice known."

It's called the First Amendment, in case you'd forgotten. Second, I am not the only person who's registered similar sentiments about Ballard in this thread and I don't recall you getting lathered up over those people, and third, I sure as heck have to wonder what your definition of "distasteful" is, particularly when such descriptions are thrown about without any reference to specifics.
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
1
148
"It's called the First Amendment, in case you'd forgotten."

I haven't forgotten. That's why I referred to it as opinion, such as the ones you display.

"Second, I am not the only person who's registered similar sentiments about Ballard in this thread and I don't recall you getting lathered up over those people"

Because those people do not talk of Ballard with the same vitriol that you use.

"and third, I sure as heck have to wonder what your definition of "distasteful" is, particularly when such descriptions are thrown about without any reference to specifics."

Your latest post would be such an example.


Adam
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
As moderator let us please calm down and return to the discussion at hand.

We all have the right to voice our opinions and we all have the right to voice our dislike of anothers opinions. But none of us have the right to launch personal attacks against another based on there opinions. Let us keep it polite or suspension will loom for further offenders.

Whether we agree or disagree we need to all get along.
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
533
16
148
"I haven't forgotten. That's why I referred to it as opinion, such as the ones you display."

Actually, what you seemingly did was express indignation that I make postings about Ballard and Cameron, which in point of fact, I don't do much of nowadays except when there's something new to comment on, as was the case with this article. If the article was just about Ballard's project and contained no remarks about salvage, I wouldn't have had to comment on those aspects at all, just like the others would not have had to.

"Because those people do not talk of Ballard with the same vitriol that you use."

To me, "vitriol" is when Ballard says something that the factual record shows is untrue and tries to make himself look like a pillar of nobility based on the untruth. When he says he didn't meet a single person after he found Titanic who was in favor of salvage, that is not true unless he wants to blot out the TV interview I mentioned before. Would someone from the salvage side have been treated charitably for similar conduct? I doubt that very much.