Human Remains


Jun 10, 1999
1,284
18
313
Hello Bob:

Yes I too read an article in our local NEVADA APPEAL...somehow I knew that someone would beat me to the punch...oh well...:)

Actually it was the *bottom gun* of the U.S. Naval MONITER endeavor. Is'nt it striking the similarities of the HUNLEY and MONITER salvage? And how insistent the expedition teams are to revere the lost. And as a precursor, in the case of the HUNLEY, proclaiming a fitting place for proper burial.

I am curious to know how Sparks feels on the matter? Is the U.S. Navy violating a creed of *lost at sea* or *buried at sea*? Are you anti-salvagers (In general) going to make another exception to the rule...denoting TITANIC *thee* sacred tomb, or yet in Dr. Ballard's own words..."My Museum".

What do you want to bet that Nat'l Geo. covers the MONITER salvage just as they did the HUNLEY...all the while siding with Ballard in proclaiming the TITANIC site ever so sacred. Yet in their Dec. '86 "Long Last Look at the Titanic" cover story, on pg. 787 of this same issue the "Ghosts On The Little Bighorn" were being pilfered...

...will the real hypocrite please stand up?

Or is it a matter of animosity? Perhaps resenting the fact that some loving, caring, thinking human being beat another to the punch.

And how I reflect on those similarites of a Nat'l Geographic documentary entitled 'Treasures of the Deep', featuring the '94 RMSTI salvage proclaiming..."They have come to claim a piece of the past". To be followed years later with an History Channel exclusive regarding the MONITER salvage, and thus also proclaiming..."They have come to rescue one of their own".

Mr. Ken Marschall sums it up eloquently..."It is a fine shade of grey".

AMEN,

Michael Cundiff
USA
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
568
45
193
"Yes, and Ballard has also advocated the use of ROVs, considering they are safer than conventional manned submersibles."

I am even more opposed to the idea of having ROV's take the place of the human eye being able to see something preserved for future generations in a museum. Ballard to me operates under the mindset that his computers can offer better experiences than the human senses and that's one mindset I will never be supportive of.

"Would you provide the source of this information?"

Try every TV interview he gave with Good Morning America, The CBS Morning News and a host of others from the wreck site the day after he found it, not to mention his interview with Ted Koppel on "Nightline" from the site during the 1986 expedition (all of which I have on tape, and which you are welcome to a copy of). In every instance he is denouncing the recovery of anything on the grounds of the sacredness of the site, and this is long before there was any such thing as the RMS Titanic Inc. organization. Then lo and behold, in between those interviews we suddenly get this curious deviation that he has never been forthright about.

Quote: "I am proposing that any future revisits to the Titanic which would involve deep diving submersibles dedicate a portion of their diving time to carefully recording and recovering those delicate items lying outside the hull of the ship itself. The artifacts recovered should be used to create a museum." Endquote.

Now what is one to make of this? We get this "don't touch period" argument when he's on television in 1985 and 1986, yet away from TV he ends up expressing support for the basic principle of salvaging artifacts in between, and then after the 87 expedition he goes out of his way to demonize all aspects of salvage without explaining this deviation? Very odd if you ask me, and very hypocritical too in the extreme since the reason most people like myself support salvage is for the same reason outlined in the Congressional testimony.

"There is still a significant difference between the Isis and Titanic. Titanic belonged to a period that is well known to historians."

Sorry, but that is once again the "chronological snobbery" argument and its an argument that is not valid IMO. I am a 20th century historian, and there's plenty of things to learn about from each new artifact preserved from my standpoint, and the interest is for ultimately the same reason as the ancient historian has an interest in the Isis. Titanic represents a seminal moment in world history far more than the Isis does, and IMO merits more attention ultimately in terms of artifact preservation simply from my perspective as a 20th century specialist. Olympic furnishings are not the same thing and never will be. That kind of attitude about treating Olympic as the same led to all kinds of misinformation about Titanic to persist for decades, such as the identity of the smoking room painting.

"As I stated before, I see no problem in salvaging from the Titanic if and when our historical knowledge of that time period has deteriorated."

So in other words, we have to go through a process of becoming collectively dumb for 300 years before its okay to start preserving something again. That kind of attitude has led to the destruction of more important historical sites of the 20th century than I can count (New York's Penn Station to cite one example)

"Then why are you not opposed to salvage from the Monitor?"

I'm not. I'm saying that those who have denounced salvaging Titanic on the "gravesite" argument but don't denounce the Monitor's salvaging are engaging in a double standard of the highest order in which it would seem there are certain rules that apply only to Titanic by the decree of Robert Ballard.

"To my knowledge, only the ship itself is deteriorating rapidly."

Not true of paper artifacts, and many of the other recovered artifacts would have been subject to more years of rust and more years of deterioration. The means exist to preserve them now and there is no reason other than phony sanctimony for not preserving them for others. I see no reason why seeing Titanic artifacts with one's own eyes should be a privileged reserved for an elitist few who can afford million dollar submersible dives.

"For one, I can mention that RMS Titanic has not catalogued the artifacts properly"

And Robert Ballard has not released all of the photos from the 85-86 expedition, last time I checked. As far as not "cataloging" artifacts properly, I'd like an example of it, and whether or not it still justifies Ballard's resorting to deception as in the case of the crow's nest matter.

"Unless the objects in question were not grave sites."

The Monitor is more of one, and if you're not objecting to that, that argument does not hold water. There have been no disturbing of human remains in any of the Titanic expeditions.

"As far as the concept of recovering artifacts and preserving them in a museum for all to see, as has been stated before, they are taken out of context."

What "context"? The context of a cramped view in a submersible 12,000 feet down that no one but an elitist few would ever get to see? Frankly, I don't regard that as much of a "context" especially since its impossible to study those artifacts in detail from that "context" until they are removed and can be seen upclose by the human senses.

"Would you rather view Civil War artifacts from the battle of Gettysburg in a museum, or would you rather see them in their original context, at Gettysburg?"

An apples and oranges comparison because you forget one key thing. I can go to Gettysburg and so can the rest of the general public and it doesn't cost them a million dollars which is what it would cost to go down in a submersible, which is an inaccessible location for the general public. When the matter is whether the artifacts should be seen by the people or by an elite few, the option that favors the people is what must prevail and in the case of the Titanic that means preserving them in a museum. What it should not mean is Ballard's dehumanizing solution of having remote cameras on the Internet substitute for the human eye.
 

Adam McGuirk

Member
May 19, 2002
567
1
183
Eric, you are indeed right with everything you said. You laid it all out right. The Gettysburg comparison is totally irrevelent to the Titanic. I can drive to Gettysburg, I can't die to the Titanic. Adam, why do you want to see those artifacts deteiorate when we can save them, and let future generations have what was on Titanic right in front of them. What better way to preserve a culture than that? Like I said my parents had never gotten into the Titanic, and they had scene the movie and scene the documenteries, but when we went to the artifacts exibit they had showed more interest than ever because the things people on Titanic had were right there infront of them. I had never felt that kind of amazement either when I looked at the artifacts. I couldn't believe I was looking at the bell that Fleet rang.
Just my opinions,
Adam
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
18
313
Hello Eric and the others:

Just for what it's worth, it is my understanding that Dr. Ballard had his *change of heart* (In recovering these delicate items) upon his reviewing of the, some 72,000 images captured
during his '85 co-discovery expedition and his *return* to the TITANIC in '86. It was Ken Marschal who noted the pair of shoes lying in close enough proximity to ascertain that indeed a body had once rested at the very spot.

Was not the immense variety of human artifacts (ex., chamber pots, teacups, bedsprings) seen in '85 alone, witness enough for Dr. Ballard to put forth his *hands-off* amendment at the TITANIC wrecksite?

Your trying to tell us that the complete devastation of the stern, where those unfortunate souls lanquished in peril thought just before their deaths was not witness enough Dr. Ballard?

Michael A. Cundiff
USA
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
568
45
193
"it is my understanding that Dr. Ballard had his *change of heart* (In recovering these delicate items) upon his reviewing of the, some 72,000 images captured during his '85 co-discovery expedition and his *return* to the TITANIC in '86."

Which would not however, jibe with what he said in his TV interviews from the wreck site in September 1985 where he is already taking the "never bring up one object, period" approach even then, and also championing ROV technology as a better substitute for seeing them, which is *before* his strange deviation before Congress one month later to a position that people like myself would have gladly endorsed. Had Ballard stayed true to what he said before Congress, I can say with certainty that no one who favored salvage would have been so anxious to bend over backward to defend RMS Titanic Inc. at every turn if the alternative would have been salvage at a slower pace, but by all means get something up for people to see as soon as possible! Instead, Ballard's taking of the "gravesite desecration" position to denounce anyone who favored salvage, IMO ultimately did more to poison the ranks of Titanicdom than anything else. What was needed from the start was a common ground solution exactly along the lines that Ballard had stated before Congress which IMO would have pleased all sides ultimately. As things turned out, I was ultimately forced to take the side of RMS Titanic Inc. since the alternatives being presented to me were no salvage or imperfect salvage, and given that choice I without hesitation choose the latter.
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
18
313
G'Morning Eric:

As always I appreciate your input. The *pair of shoes* reference I made was from a segmented interview with Dr. Ballard, one of which orgin escapes me now. You realize the abundance of TITANIC documentaries...but it was one with regards to the embattled salvage issue. Perhaps it was the *extended* "Secrets of the Titanic" (Nat'l Geo). The added 19 minutes is primarily an interview with Ballard. Or, it may have been the PBS exclusive..."Battle for the Titanic". I particulary enjoyed this one, Ralph White was quick to note that Ballard *needs* to extend credit to the others who participated on the U.S. expedition team of '85. Perhaps his reason for disclosing the wreck's coordinates to IFREMER.

And yes I am familiar with the Sept. '85 TV interview of your aforemention. Something to the effect of "The ship rests on a gently sloping incline overlooking a canyon...her mighty stacks pointing upward". I recall the '85 U.S. team even thinking that they had retrieved some TITANIC funnel paint, as the ARGO camera sled had had a brief encounter.

As we are all aware now, the stacks were violently detached during the sinking/break-up!

Have a good day...me, I'm off to work.

Michael Cundiff
USA
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
568
45
193
Yeah, the "mighty stacks" reference was in the press conference because at the time they both felt the second and third funnels were intact. Looking at the initial news coverage of Titanic's discovery and the initial interviews is a fascinating look at how so much of the initial information we received turned out to be so wrong. The first pictures of Titanic that aired on TV on the CBS Evening News (which somehow managed to get exclusive network rights for the first pictures) show the bow section and Dan Rather's preface says, "You can see the iceberg damage." Looking at it now, it's clear that this bit of wishful thinking was caused by misinterpreting a rusticle pattern. Then there was Ballard's description of the "jackstaff for the flag" on the bow, which was actually the boom anchor swung in the opposite direction.
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
18
313
Eric:

Interesting that you should mention the *Iceberg damage*. A highlight of my pro-'85 TITANIC collection is a vast array of newspaper clippings, which even includes a S.F. Chronicle front pg. clipping..."We think we've got the Titanic" (Jack Grimm's futile attempt). Anyhow one of the first publicly released photographs
(And a part of my *NP clippings* collection) from Ballard's R.V. in '85 was a photograph bearing a caption to the effect of *iceberg damage*.

And as for only glimpsing a faint "C" of the 18" portside bow letters, purportedly (Dr. Ballard) the name was *consumed* by time? In 1987, Paul Henri Nargeolet and his NAUTILE would prove otherwise.

And what of the triple screws? However, ALVIN submersible pilot Dudley Foster acted accordingly in retracting the endangered submersible from the precarious *overhanging poop*...Dr. Ballard would *rashly* record in his "Discovery of the Titanic"..."The propellors are buried deeply in the sea-bottom".

Again the FRENCH with their submersible NAUTILE would prove otherwise...

By far it is not my intention to disrepect a man's reputation here on ET...but as a youth my Father instilled upon me an, sacred if you will, VALUE..."Always be sure to extend credit where credit is due".

And Eric...after 15 YEARS the anti-salvage camp has yet to produce the *infamous* crows-nest footage...what gives?

For the *unbeknowst* members of ET, this heated salvage debate originates way back. And for the record I have archived the *demeaning* nature of the threads ([email protected] - TitanicListbox.com) aimed at the TITANIC salvage endeavor and it's supporters.

I remain,

Michael Cundiff
Carson City, NV. USA
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
568
45
193
"And Eric...after 15 YEARS the anti-salvage camp has yet to produce the *infamous* crows-nest footage...what gives?"

This remains one of the most laughable aspects of anti-salvage extremism ever. There was once a certain gent who shall remain nameless (but I think you know who I'm referring to) who had a peculiar habit of claiming that the destruction of the crows nest by Nautile could be seen in the 1988 Doug Llewelyan hosted special. He said this was seen in the version that was broadcast on TV and was snipped from the home video version. There was only one problem though. I still had my personally taped copy of the special and gave a detailed accounting of what was in the special and it showed no such thing. What follows are the excuses this gentleman then resorted to, and no, I am not making these up:

1-First, the gentleman insisted that this footage was seen in a "longer" version of the special that only aired in certain markets on TV but not in New York, which was where I taped my copy from. Now anyone who knows something about how TV specials are put together, will tell you that this kind of thing never happens with *any* TV program. One version is prepared for all stations and there is not a single instance in the history of television where one market received a "longer" version of a program than another market.

2-I then asked this gentleman to send me a copy of his tape, which he insisted showed this incriminating footage. He refused. I then asked if he could put screen captures of this on his web site and let us see for ourselves. He refused. At this point, a trend was beginning to become clear.

3-But let us come back to another salient point that seemed to get lost in the shuffle amidst these bold declarations about incriminating footage being on TV. How can RMS Titanic Inc. on the one hand be so smart as to get everyone who took part in this expedition to never admit to this, yet at the same time they could be so dumb as to let this supposedly incriminating footage escape into the editing process? Is there any rational sense to be found in the idea that somehow footage like that would end up being broadcast for millions to see? (yet amazingly no one who watched or taped that special ever saw it?)

This kind of modus operandi, I'm sorry to say, was quite typical of the most vocal anti-salvage people throughout the 1990s, and the sad thing is that they were often able to get away with it by wrapping themselves up in the mantle of the Ballard perspective. Having been away from Titanic circles for two years, it now seems as though this brand of anti-salvage thought has died out, but the scars that remain from the wounds they inflicted are still deep and the world of Titanic enthusiasts I don't think will ever fully recover from them.
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
5
183
I think I'm going to withdraw myself from this debate. The possibility of bad blood tarnishing this board's too great, and I don't want to end up turning this into a shouting match.

I've pointed out my reservations regarding salvage, and share such reservations with the Monitor salvage, yet the Monitor is in good hands. I wish I could say the same for Titanic, but I can't. I would also like to mention that Mr. Paddon, though he has labeled others as well as myself as hypocrites, is guilty of such a double standard in regards to the treatment of the USS Arizona.

That, and given I'm about to start classes in a few days, I don't have the energy to carry on several debates at once, including this heated one. For future reference, however, anyone wishing to discuss this with me should do so over e-mail.


Adam
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
Let's please keep this debate on a friendly note. We may all not agree but sometimes it's best to just let others have there opinions.

Be fore warned that I will not tolerate name calling and personal attacks on this or any thread that I moderate.

So let's all enjoy the friendly debate.

Thanks
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
568
45
193
Adam, I'm afraid I don't see where the double standard is with regard to the Arizona. Museums already have plenty of items from the Arizona that were taken from the wreck when the superstructure was cut away to clear the channel (this included removal of the anchors which are on display I believe), and people can go right to the wreck itself and see it in a "context" that does not require spending a million dollars to go to the bottom of the ocean. And with almost 1500 trapped inside the wreck, which is not the case of Titanic, and with artifacts already removed to satisfy the museum need for future generations, there is in the end no double standard involved comparable to the one taken by those who have been on the extreme end of the anti-salvage issue with regard to Titanic.

I have to say with all honesty, I remain perplexed as to why the instances of behavior by some people such as Robert Ballard with regard to the crows nest never elicits any comment from those who are so quick to find fault with every aspect of Titanic salvage.
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
18
313
Eric:

During the promotion of Daniel Butler's "Unsinkable" book, my folks just happened to be in the Monrovia, CA area. My Mother phoned and asked..."Would you like a signed copy of the book?", of which I were to respond with..."Why yes Mother, but more than that I would like you to confront Mr. Butler
with an E-Mail for me". As Butler was subjected to the information via my forwarded E-mail in regards to the crow's nest, and the alleged television/VCR/tape in his possesion (Said to ferry around with him in his vehicle) which, at the time propagated the Titanic discussion forums, I would receive a hand written reply on my E-Mail..."The original footage has since been edited", as my Mother returned to Carson City.

Poppycock! As an aside to this nonsense, I too am in possesion of the highly sought after, 1987 live from Paris, France "Return to the Titanic" (Joslyn) television broadcast, and the 1988 Doug Llewelyan tape of your aforemention.

Why is it Eric that when the most staunch supporters of the pro-salvage camp, as with yourself and I, produce *concrete* facts, the anti-salvage camp, either withdraws from the mannerable debate, or continues with heresay?

BTW, I am also a *deep-sea submersible* enthusiast (hence the screename: NAUTILE125) and am very familiar with the video camera set-up/operation affixed to the front of NAUTILE. If indeed the submersible pilot were endeavoring to retrieve the *foremast running light*, by no means would their camera(s) be poised much furthur down the mast where the *crows nest* was affixed, in order to have captured the *alleged* footage.

Michael Cundiff
USA
 
B

Brian Hawley

Guest
I went to the Mariners Museum in Newport News VA Monday and I feel the Monitor artifacts are in fantastic hands. The museum are in the process of treating the items, which is in many cases a 10 year task. I got to view the recently raised turret which was in a steel restoration/preservation box still under construction by volunteers from the Newport News Shipyard. The state of the Monitor today versus the early 80s is such that one must either raise artifacts or lose them forever, a situation that Titanic finds herself in as well. Certainly the many of the items raised teach us and tell a story perhaps the most interesting is a lantern that it is believed was used to signal help on that stormy night off the NC coast. The museum was flying flags at half mast as some remains have been discovered at the site. All in all I was extremely impressed with the efforts being made to properly take care of the items and show respect for the lost lives. If anyone is in the area I recommend this museum highly. They even have a small Titanic exhibit which includes among other items a small vanity box retrieved from the sea after Titanic sank. It is nearly identical to one shown in Father Brown's photo of his cabin. Additionally their collection of models is top notch, many having been donated by the shipping lines directly to the museum.


Brian
 
Jan 7, 2002
2,447
36
243
The Titanic was perhaps the most important commercial shipwreck in history, so why there are still some who feel she is somehow unworthy of exploration or exhibition is bewildering.

I like Eric's mention of chronological snobbery, as Ive seen it amongst my friends who are marine archaeologists.

Im interested in shipwrecks form the age of steam-1850-1950, but my friends interested in wrecks from antiquity tell me somehow the ships I study of not as historically relevant as what they study. I say poppycock!

That very close minded mindset is why no major ocean liners from before WW1 were ever preserved.

There also seems a curious prejudice against ocean liners- Warships that sank are deemed historicaly relivant from any age, but ocean liners, not nearly so. Why is that?

The notion that since we 'have' survivng artifacts from Olympic, there is no need to explore Titanic' is simple poppycock. Number one Olympic was not Titanic. Number two, most of the Olympic items are in private collections.

I have had the incredible honor of working at five Titanic Artifact Exhibitions, with and around the artifacts, and can assure you , the artifacts serve a great purpose. They bring the story of Titanic to the people, and make this ship tangible for scores, who would otherwise know Titanic only as a picture in a book.

We used to have the lifeboat davit touchable, and many tears were shed, and dreams realised when people held that piece of the ship that for so long had been a part of their life...

For now, only an elite few can dive on the wreck, so the artifacts recovered bring Titanic to the people. But I do hope the tourist dives to the wreck resume, as I wish to see the Titanic wreck in person, and hope you all have that chance too..

Dr Ballard may have helped open the door for deep sea exploration, but the man is arrogant,based on his own words and actions, and there is more than enough evidence to prove his venom at the artifact recovery efforts was nothing more than sour grapes- Someone beat him to the punch.

Perhaps after hoodwinking his French Titanic expedition coleader by releasing the Expedition photos first, Ballard earned their spite, and the French involvement with the early artifact recovery efforts struck Ballard as a slap in the face. I think Ballard felt if he couldnt recover artifacts, then nobody should...

I just find it telling how Ballard indicated the desire to be the first..and last person to explore the great wrecks on the sea floor...

I have followed the raising of the Hunley and the Monitor turret with great interest. Both wrecks contained human remains- and without doubt anyone in favor of the recovery of those Civil War wrecks, who turns around and dismisses Titanic artifct recovery endeavours as graverobbing are blatent hippocrites...

The notion that unmanned probes can do our deep sea exploring for us is very disturbing. Where is the spirit of exploration? One may as well stay indoors and explore the outdoors by looking out the window...

My hope is Gellar and cronies will be ousted from RMSTI, and more sane minds will return the company to a rational course. There needs to be a permamnant museum for the artifacts, where conservation can occour onsite. The dive footage needs to be catloged into a central archive, where museum visitors can view the dive tapes at their leisure.

But no doubt smaller satelite exhibits would bring in revenue for the exhibits.
And there would need to be more expeditions, to film the deep interior of the wreck, and to raise, conserve and exhibit the artifacts.

regards

Tarn Stephanos
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
Tarn said; The notion that unmanned probes can do our deep sea exploring for us is very disturbing. Where is the spirit of exploration? One may as well stay indoors and explore the outdoors by looking out the window...

Hi Tarn, I'd say the spirit of exploration is alive and well, albit not conducted quite as recklessly as in ages past. Regarding deep sea exploration, my bet is that unmanned probes will be the way to go for some overwhelmingly practical reasons, not the least of which is that nobody has...as yet...figured out how to build a diving suit which will not implode on the diver at a depth of 2.5 miles. Also, poking around inside a disintigrating wreck is a phenomonally dangerous way to make a living. One little mistake, and you'll find out in an instant whether or not there really is an afterlife!

Make no mistake about it, manned submersibles will never go away, but there are places they can't get into whereas ROV's can, and at much lower risk.
 
Jul 9, 2002
119
2
183
Hello all!

Here is the long and short of this entire debate. (In my humble opinion.) HUNLEY....Gravesite. MONITOR....Gravesite, TITANIC.....Gravesite. That's it. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. As for what is considered Archeological or not, lets take a look at a whole new creature. the Pyramids of Egypt. what are they you may ask? Gravesites. Oh thats right ladies and gentlemen, they are graves. Yet MOST people see nothing wrong with breaking into them and looking through them and blatently taking what they want. Then they put it in a Muesum and study it and say "Hey look everyone!...Archaeology!" If you go to a place where a signifigant historical event took place, remove ANYTHING from said place and study it, you are performing Archaeology. Now, as a former US Navy Sailor, I agree 100% that the crews of the Hunley and Monitor and whatever other Navy ship out there should be given the Proper Military Burial that they deserve. The Arizona is another thing all together. That ship IS their grave. The Navy has said so, so there is no reason to recover them for burial. In fact, many Arizona survivors have their bodies place inside the hull after their deaths to reamin with their shipmates for ever. So in saying that, you cant even use the Arizona in this conversation, Its a whole different entity.
Now as for TITANIC, First of all there are No human remains to bring up and bury. That should be end of story but its not. In my opinion, while the loss of TITANIC was tragic, the people who died that night are in their graves. Leave them, and their personal belongings alone. IF you or anyone else want to bring items from the SHIP up, then that is fine. You study it and call it Archaeology and learn about the past. A debate about "proper burial" for these 1,500 souls is pointless as they have been buried at sea. Let them Rest In Piece.
Regards,
Ryan
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
18
313
Ryan:

You seemed to have contradicted yourself. First you want to tell us that the HUNLEY, MONITER, and TITANIC are gravesites. Then it's o.k. to raise the dead from the HUNLEY and MONITER, as you would say..."To give them proper burial". You want to differentiate the U.S.N. MONITER and the U.S.N. ARIZONA. Do you really feel that those chaotic remains, at Pearl Harbor, of a once proud battleship is an appropriate grave? Having deemed so by whom, the Japanese military of 1941?

Do you really think that those less fortunate immigrants who left the "old world" in April 1912, with aspirations of a "new world" would have wanted it that way. What of final closure?

Then please tell me in your own honest opinion...should we have dove to the TWA Flight 800 wrecksite off the eastern seaboard, took some pictures, wrote a book, released a documentary, and left the surviving members of those victims to anguish with grieve until their deaths.

Where are your loved ones buried? Two of mine, my beautiful spirited sister, Virgina, who was cut down by a drunk-driver at 28, rests in eternal peace just blocks away. My Uncle Duane, upheld the meaning of "Land of the Free. Home of the Brave", during WWII and was commemorated by Navy brass for his courage...only to die from alchoholism as a result of his painful experience at the "Battle of Midway" campaign. My Uncle Duane rests just a quaint four hr. drive from my home. My good friend Arthur Bayer can take an airflight from NV to go pay respects to his boy, Arthur Bayer Jr., just 34 and taken a plot at Arlington National Cemetary with his fellow heros. Now that my friend is a gravesite, that is hallowed ground, that is what this country is made of!

Thank GOD I do not have to pay the cost for a seat ($35,000) in a deep-sea submersible to pay homage to my loved ones.

Wanna know, IMHO, what should be done with the U.S.N. ARIZONA remains? Raise the entire site, thereby preventing the inevitable environmental hazard. Remove the dead, and like the HUNLEY reserve the most sacred of honorable memorial gravesites for them. Return the personal effects to the next close of kin...and ship the torn asunderd ship remains to Kure, Japan, where it can be placed in *their* War museum...let that country aghast in horror.

"Big Mo" is our ARIZONA memorial, after partaking in avenging those deaths at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese G'ovt bowed to those 16" guns with apology, and endorsed the documents of surrender. U.S.N. MISSOURI now stands eternal vigil over the site. She gleams proudly and stands tall. (And even had a couple of extra punchs to throw Saddam's way in '92)

BTW, at our Nevada State Capitol complex is erected a memorial (and the ship's bell) for those lost aboard the U.S.N. NEVADA on 7 Dec. '41. I pay homage nearly every week to the names of those lost...so many...so young...

Michael A. Cundiff
USA
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
568
45
193
Been away for a bit from this forum but Michael, your account regarding Butler gave me a good chuckle. Isn't amazing that you can find more examples of the old "dog ate my homework" theme in the extremists who yap about "crows nest destruction footage" then anywhere else in Titanic circles?
happy.gif
 
K

Kathy A. Miles

Guest
I don't see how you can even try to compare TWA flight 800 with Titanic or any of the other cases we've been talking about. First off, we didn't know what happened with flight 800. We wanted to recover the plane pieces in the hopes of finding out what happened so that we might prevent it in the future.There were no survivors to tell us what happened. We know what happened to Titanic, we have survivors accounts.

We recovered bodies from flight 800 to return them to family members so that they might bring closure. That's not what's going on here with Titanic. What's going on here is justification for looting a gravesite and personal possessions in the name of historical research.

I don't know if Walter Lord ever handled artifacts from Titanic. He certainly didn't before his books and movie. He didn't need to. No one does. How many of us were researching Titanic before the wreck was even discovered? We don't need to see artifacts, the interest is genuine.

I'm sure you can (and likely will) argue that the artifacts have gotten people interested who might then contribute to research. I can equally argue that Cameron's movie has, as has well written documentories and papers. I don't need to touch a davit from Titanic. And I fail to see how recovering artifacts and ship pieces does anything to further historical knowledge or honor the victims.
Cheers,
Kathy
 

Similar threads

Similar threads