> "Phew - if we're going by anecdotal evidence, I've yet to meet anyone > in the Titanic circles I frequent who is in favour of covert salvage > operations (present company excepted, of course
)"
Wonderful! Where do you live? I'm always keen on hearing the dissenting point of view. I just hadn't found it until now. I am so relieved!
"As for having the best of intentions, I regard that as by no means a certainty."
I know it's not a certainty, I thought I had made that clear. However, I would like to believe that those willing to invest that amount of money would: 1) Know how to care for the artifacts they just retrieved properly 2) If THEY ARE trying to generate revenue, generate that revenue solely from their own traveling, public displays or television documentaries. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which way one looks at it or tries not to, the remains of the Titanic do represent a great "business opportunity". Just ask James Cameron. But rest assured Inger, I'm sure you won't see recovered Titanic artifacts on E-bay anytime soon. Unless we're talking about coal. Incidentally, everyone here does remember that RMTI salvaged coal and then sold it to the general public right? Or is that just not important because it was coal and not steamer trunks or china or bed lamps? Whether it be because we are morbidly curious or genuinely interested, major human tragedies generate great public interest, and great public interest in turn leads to great business opportunities. Which is why RMTI was conceived and founded in the first place, no matter what they purport their reasoning to be. And if it wasn't a public company with myriad stockholders do you honestly think we'd know anything regarding their internal and external operating procedures?
"I also think there's a remarkable arrogance to a group that would presume to flout and legal processes because they 'know best' about what should be done on the site."
I'm sorry you feel that way, but when it comes to salvaging the Titanic, it seems nobody with the means and motivation to do so knows best. Someone needed to take a stand and act. Someone now has.
"Many museums have collections relying at least in part on questionable practices in acquiring artifacts in the past (Elgin Marbles...many Australian museums' collections of objects associated with indigneous peoples...). However, internationally reputable museums now have a very strict code regarding acquisition practices - I've discussed it at some length over here with even comparatively small local museums when working on exhibitions and with collections. Mike's point about the unliklihood of artifacts being acquired by the means this group have employed being accessible to the public make a good deal of sense to me."
It does to me too. Believe me, I know I sound arrogant myself here, but I'll be following the developing story closely and reserve my final word until the majority of the evidence has come to light. It will be interesting to see how it will all play out in the end. Usually though, things like this always manage to wash clean.
Patrick D.
> >