Confession about Dr Ballard

[Michael H. Standart]

>>My problem Michael, is that I'm long past a point where I can take anything the guy says about the Titanic seriously any longer.

Well then, Eric, with all due respect, that is indeed your problem. It's not Dr. Ballard's. And it's not as if he's accountable to us.

>>and if he wants to express concerns about the state of the wreck, they have to be divorced completely from the general issue of salvage which to me at least, is the only reason why he ever sounds off on it at all.<<

Actually, they don't have to be divorced from anything of the kind. It would be nice if it was, but he has no such obligation to make it happen that way. If he wants to have an opinion that you, myself, or anyone doesn't like, he's free to do so. Divorced from salvage or not, if he's right on a point...and I think it's demonsterable that he is on some of them...then he's right.

 

[Eric Paddon]

To me, it's never been a matter of being accountable to "us". I have more in mind accountability to history in general. Too often much of what he might end up saying which gets reported in the media is because he's been gilding his own lily for a long time, and then what he says gets added an extra level of credence that may or may not be deserved.

My view is that the "rightness" of what he is putting forth has to take into consideration his own quirks, and his own track record surrounding the Titanic in the past. The issue of whether the wreck is deteriorating or not is not the kind of thing that *anyone* would ever disagree with, because all of us by virtue of common sense knows that's what inevitably happens. Ballard though, puts forth that basic argument and attempts to couch it to the idea that this would never have happened but for salvage and then uses his gilded lily image to suggest what he says has more authority than anything else on a deeper issue unrelated to whether there is deterioration or not, since I can't recall anyone saying the wreck isn't deteriorating at all, period.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Too often much of what he might end up saying which gets reported in the media is because he's been gilding his own lily for a long time, and then what he says gets added an extra level of credence that may or may not be deserved.<<

You know, I'm not disputing any of that, however, it kind of misses the point. Yes, you have to consider the source, but that's no reason to be instantly dismissive of anything the man has to say either. That's the trap you appear to have fallen into...coloured by your own dislike for the man...and I'm not going to make the same mistake.

I'll give consideration to his arguements based on their merits or lack thereof, note what I disagree with, and grant him his due credit when he scores.

 

[George L. Lorton]

I too wish that certain people would stop attacking Dr. Ballard. Of course he's one of my childhood heroes. But attacking him for making a stance on an issue is wrong as Mike Standart said in an earlier post.

To Salvage Or Not To Salvage? Personally my stance is not to salvage in certain instances. My reasons are varied. The things salvaged most times end up in private collections were no one can see them. Like the Dolls Head from Ballard's first expedition to Titanic. Where is it now and what can it tell us that it couldn't on the ocean floor. Why should it be saved for future generations. Personally that image of the dolls head laying on the Ocean floor served in my mind as a monument to Lorraine Allison and all the other little girls who perished on Titanic. Why salvage it except to keep it and gloat. Out of its surrounding's its just a dolls head. It least when you take certain items they can tell you something about the past. What does a dolls head tell you out of its surroundings except that its a dolls head.

 

[Tarn Stephanos]

Dr. Ballard's importance of being co-leader of the expedition that found the wreck cannot be denied- But others have come since that have taken the baton and lunged full throttle with in depth explorations of the wreck's interior (i.e James cameron).
I think Dr Ballard is too cautious an explorer to ever take the risks to explore Titanic's deep interior- So under Dr Ballard's command, an expedition akin to Cameron expedition that explored areas like the Turkish baths, etc would NEVER happen in our lifetime...

I find Ballard's fondness of the spotlight a bit troublesome-The image is conveyed that he and his followers see Titanic as 'his turf'- but is that really a rare thing? I have encountered the occasional Titanic buff who feel Titanic is theirs, and not to be shared..
Dr Ballard has done a wonderful thing in reaching out to schools, and encouraging your people to explore the aquatic sciences...
You can like him, but don't glorify him.
You don't have to like him, but you can't dismiss him as being irrelivant...

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>I find Ballard's fondness of the spotlight a bit troublesome<<

Aye, that can be a bit offputting but even that cloud can have a silver lining. Especially if what Dr. Ballard does in the spotlight not only calls attention to history but inspires people to take an interest in that or the oceanographic sciences.

 

[George L. Lorton]

Dr. Ballard helped get me interested in the Titanic and the Ocean in general.

 

[Jason Schleisman]

Me too. Although now, I like to take a more objective stance on his assertions instead of assuming in my former child-like manner that everything he said was gospel truth.

 

[George L. Lorton]

quote:

I like to take a more objective stance on his assertions instead of assuming in my former child-like manner that everything he said was gospel truth.

Oh The Memories Of By Gone Happy Days!!! I'm more objective Too.

Most of the Time.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

If you want "Gospel" then you need to read the Gospels themselves if you're of a religiously minded persuasion. You won't get Gospel anything from Dr. Ballard or any other mere mortal.

While we're at it, don't confuse my attempts to be even handed with the man for an endorsement of some of his more controversial views or his personality. I'll keep my own counsel on whether or not I agree with them based on whatever evidence is brought to the table to support or falsify same.

The claims of his having a prickly personality sound like they have some justification as well, but a lot of people in history who have achieved real "greatness"...whatever that is...haven't always been the nicest people in the world. However, when you get down to it, it's not their personal piccadilos which matter. It's what they achieved in spite of those piccadilos which matter.

 

[Richard Stover]

Like him or not, Dr. Ballard HAS forwarded the cause of oceanagraphic research/wrecks more than most people in the last 20+ years with a few notable exceptions.
Unfortunately, in my own opinion, he let the fame get to him somewhat. It's not a BAD thing actually in some respects, but it doesn't really help his image much at all at times.
It's men like James Cameron and Parks and tons of others who have kept the Titanic alive by showing us what it had been, and what it looks like now, while answering questions and helping to keep the ship and the dream alive in our hearts and minds.
Sorry to ramble..hehe

 

[Tarn Stephanos]

"Like him or not, Dr. Ballard HAS forwarded the cause of oceanagraphic research/wrecks more than most people in the last 20+ years with a few notable exceptions.
Unfortunately, in my own opinion, he let the fame get to him somewhat"



I completely agree- Now put aside what you think of the man's personality- if you were to judge him, based his accomplishment-what would you think? I regard him as one of the greatest pioneers of the exploration of the unndersea sciences- covering areas such as marine geology, marine biology to martitime history.
You don't have to love him- but the man's accomplishments cannot be ignored..

It's similar with John Lennon-whose importance to rock music is monumental-yet came across as such an unlikable chap in interviews..Just because I think Lennon had the personality of rabid barn owl doesn't diminish his contributions to his field of study,
Dr. Ballard deserved very high praise to reaching out to schools and trying to spark an interest in the ocean in the hearts of all young people...
Some in the Titanic community truly hate Dr. Ballard-

That's just foolish....

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>if you were to judge him, based his accomplishment-what would you think?<<

I would think that Dr. Ballard and his team pulled off one hell of an important achievement. It's one thing to send down a submersible or ROV to a ship when you know exactly where the wreck is and quite another to do the same thing on a mission that was an afterthought to the main one when you're not entirelt certain where the wreck is. It's even more remarkable when you can do that repeatedly as he did with the wrecks of the Bismarck and the Yorktown.

What this did was effectively open up the door to searching for wrecks in deep water and solving mysteries that otherwise would have gone down in the books as "Unexplained."

>>You don't have to love him- but the man's accomplishments cannot be ignored.. <<

You're right on both counts and need I point out that some of the greatest achievers the world has ever seen haven't always been the most likable people in the world. I wouldn't let Vincent Van Gogh in my house but he was a hell of an artist. Sir Isaac Newton was quite a piece of work, but his insights on how objects at rest and in motion were groundbreaking and essential discoveries in the world of physics.

Thomas Edison wasn't exactly a likable chap either, but he churned out thousands of inventions which we take for granted, including the humble lightbulb.

Helen Keller was so far left in her political worldviews that she made the Communist Party look like the John Birch Society. Some may regard her views as offensive, some as "progressive," (Whatever that is.) but regardless of that, it's what she was able to achieve in the face of incredible adversity that matters.

What it boils down to is that what you're dealing with are people with feet of clay much like the rest of us. You set yourself up for some mighty disappointments if you ignore their humanity and try to make them out to be heros who can do no wrong. By the same token, you do them and yourself a massive disservice if you ignore what they achieved.

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

Mike-

quote:

Helen Keller was so far left in her political worldviews that she made the Communist Party look like the John Birch Society. Some may regard her views as offensive, some as "progressive," (Whatever that is.) but regardless of that, it's what she was able to achieve in the face of incredible adversity that matters.

I don't want to get TOO off track here, but I must say that I am curious about this.

Very briefly: What kind of views did she embody? Supposedly she did a lot for the blind, which isn't at all less significant because she harbored unfavorable or unpopular views, whatever they might be. Besides, just because some might not agree with these views doesn't mean that she was a bad or unfriendly person.

Anyway, just wondered.​

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>What kind of views did she embody?<<

Socialist, and all at a time when an early version of the Red Scare was already well underway. This sort of thing got her in a lot of hot water at the time but she never wavered from her convictions. If you want to read more about that, get a copy of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen. Amazon offers the revised edition HERE.

>>Besides, just because some might not agree with these views doesn't mean that she was a bad or unfriendly person.<<

Nor would I imply that it did. As I indicated, it's what she was able to achieve in spite of her disability that matters. Whether or not one views her politics as right or wrong is a highly subjective matter of opinion.