Pirates at the Wreck

P

Patrick Christophe Morrissey-D'amore

Guest
"Well, you might try to refrain from such inflammatory language for one thing (Consider this a forum rules compliance issue) and try answering the question on the other. Forthrightness goes a long way towards enhancing one's credibility. Evasions have the opposite effect."

Excuse me Mike, but I've never evaded any of your questions, aside from the one post where I did not receive the majority of your commentary...which it usually is...commentary, I've always answered your questions on the rare occasions where you've actually asked questions. I'm glad to know "stupid" is now considered "inflammatory" in North Carolina. I'll have to remember that next time I'm down south.

"People who are knowingly engaging in an illegal operation (As these people would be.) are rarely known for being especially principled in the first place."

And you must know this because you know the intentions of all people engaging in illegal operations past and present right?

"Doing something illegal hardly inspires confidence."

Mayhaps not. Unlike you, I reserve all of my final judgments until I've read and considered all the evidence of the case. For an American you're certainly big on the "guilty until proven innocent" theory. If I were a lawyer, I'd hate to see you sitting on my jury.

"When somebody is breaking the law in the first place, why would anyone presume otherwise???"

Please read the above paragraph.

"This assumes you're dealing with an ethical group in the first place. For the reasons outlined above, this presumption is suspect in the extreme."

Well, if you're working under that presumption then you must also believe the people involved are "stupid" and I'm having a hard time swallowing that. And even if they are working for wealthy, private buyers, you must be presuming they buyers must be just as stupid as well right? I can just see you vividly imagining a wealthy businessman holding a disintegrating chamber pot in his hands. "Gee I never expected this would happen after paying so much money to have someone go to the bottom of the ocean where it's been for nearly one hundred years sitting in a caustic environment and retrieving it without first stabilizing it afterwards." I'd like to believe someone with that much money isn't that dumb...because if they are...wow.

"Hopes are not realities, and I doubt that anybody going on an illegal expedition would be so stupid as to put everything on public display. The authorities would tend to take a very unpleasant interest in this."

Yes, hopes are not realities, but until the worst is confirmed I can hope can't I? Again, as I've stated at least twice before, I know nothing about international law but I'm still adhering to my "Let's wait and see," attitude and then when one of us is proven right he can say "Well neener, neener and nyah, nyah" to the other.

"Yes it is...and that is exactly what people who plunder antiquties do."

If they are solely plundering antiquities for wealthy, international buyers then yes. But the antiquities in question here aren't like the usual humdrum paintings, jewelry or furniture...these are antiquities that must be maintained in a controlled environment, they can't simply be hung on a wall or placed in a shadowbox. And let's assume this expedition was financed by private buyers...then we also must assume the objects retrieved are few and far between. They'd have specific requests wouldn't they? Trying to locate specific items in the debris field would literally be like finding a needle in a haystack, and please excuse the cliche. And an entire retrieval mission undertaken to retrieve maybe a hundred specific artifacts is indeed possible, but unlikely.

I still have a very strong feeling this isn't simply a plundering operation...I think it's a question of retrieving what can be retrieved before it's too late. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here as twiddling one's thumbs as the courts try to sort this entire mess out while anything else retrievable on the ocean floor slowly rots away would be extremely frustrating for anyone with the means and motivation to recover antiquities on the ocean floor.

Thanx for my morning dose of vitriol. I feel so relaxed now that I'm actually going to enjoy my commute into NYC this morning.

Please note Mike, this will be my last response posted on this specific subject, as I'm essentially just repeating myself now anyway. Anyone who feels compelled to take up the cross on the pros of this expedition...please...feel free.

Patrick D.
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
Patrick,

This is your last warning DO NOT USE INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE Examples are as follows:

"I did not receive the majority of your commentary...which it usually is...commentary, I've always answered your questions on the rare occasions where you've actually asked questions. I'm glad to know "stupid" is now considered "inflammatory" in North Carolina. I'll have to remember that next time I'm down south."

". Unlike you, I reserve all of my final judgments until I've read and considered all the evidence of the case. For an American you're certainly big on the "guilty until proven innocent" theory. If I were a lawyer, I'd hate to see you sitting on my jury."

"I can just see you vividly imagining a wealthy businessman holding a disintegrating chamber pot in his hands."

This is my second warning today. There will not be another one. You are all more then welcome to share your opinions and your opposition to others opinions, but when you bait individuals and attack there stance in a manner which is contrary to the board rules then it is necessary for the moderators (whether they particapte in the discussion or not) to keep things polite.

If anybody wishes to contact me privately regarding this please do so.
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
1
148
"Excuse me Mike, but I've never evaded any of your questions, aside from the one post where I did not receive the majority of your commentary...which it usually is...commentary,"

You did, however, evade my question, so I will posit it again, with an addendum: do either you or Jonathan have a hand in the recent illegal salvage operation?

" I've always answered your questions on the rare occasions where you've actually asked questions. I'm glad to know "stupid" is now considered "inflammatory" in North Carolina. I'll have to remember that next time I'm down south. "

It's also considered inflammatory in Kansas, as I'm sure is the case everywhere else.


Adam
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,589
379
283
Easley South Carolina
Actually PAtrick, you evaded two of mine. To wit;

quote:

>>Actually a great many Titanic enthusiasts have agreed with me on the subject of "illegal" salvage. <<

Which would make it right...how? Just because a majority (Real or imagined) favours something does not make it a good idea.

>>Museums may not be too keen on buying stolen artifacts, but when one thinks about it aren't most treasures, relics from ancient tombs or precious gems, housed in museums of circumspect origin? <<

And the alleged crimes of the past justifies criminal action in the present...how??? (Hint:Two wrongs don't make a right!)
You can have a stab at them if you like, but that wasn't what I called you on. What I called you on was the question Adam asked regarding whether or not you have a versted interest in this. It's a valid question and would give the rest of us a better understanding of where you're coming from.

If you care to have a go at Adam's question, we can go on with this.

If not, then we really have nothing further to discuss.​
 

Lee Gilliland

Member
Feb 14, 2003
511
0
146
..." And let's assume this expedition was financed by private buyers...then we also must assume the objects retrieved are few and far between. They'd have specific requests wouldn't they? Trying to locate specific items in the debris field would literally be like finding a needle in a haystack, and please excuse the cliche. And an entire retrieval mission undertaken to retrieve maybe a hundred specific artifacts is indeed possible, but unlikely."

The possibility of finding only certain things inside the wreck, and especially inside the bow, which has never been explored, is minute. However, if they merely want a Titanic collection all their own, with items no one else has, this is more than possible with this sort of operation.
 
P

Patrick Christophe Morrissey-D'amore

Guest
> Yes. Of course I do.

In addition, I've met the second shooter on the Grassy Knoll in Texas, seen Jimmy Hoffa's grave, flown on Amelia Airheart's airplane, and have an extremely rare copy of the missing eighteen minutes of the Watergate tapes.
 

Lee Gilliland

Member
Feb 14, 2003
511
0
146
Patrick, first of all I will tell you that your tone is intemperate and that I personally resent aspersions thrown at Michael, who is in all things a gentleman. A royal pain, sometimes, but always a gentleman.

That said, I have a question about the following statement: "I just don't think a private collector, no matter how wealthy could properly care for these amazingly fragile and unstable artifacts."

Why not? Do you really think that someone who goes to the trouble and expense of an expedition of this type would not have secured a private curator for his antiquities? Of course he would. There are any number of people working as private curators of collections all over the world, and the great majority feel that rather than turn illegal ownership cases in, they are at least in the position to maintain the treasures of the past for future generations. Granted, it's a stop-gap and irrelevant, but that's how they excuse themselves - and if the objects raided wind up in a private vault under some rich man's house, that's how they'll feel about those, as well.
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
1
148
"Kansas??? Adam are you in Kansas??? Me too for the time being."

Scarily, indeed. About as far from the ocean as seems possible. Well, except for perhaps the Dakotas.


Adam
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
277
4
148
I agree with my SC neighbor Michael S, the equal opportunity curmudgeon, that principled parties would not attempt an illegal operation in the first place.

The expedition occurred, based on my evidence, the Abyssub did dive on Titanic over a period of three months from the back of Northern Horizon.
 

Lee Gilliland

Member
Feb 14, 2003
511
0
146
Now that you've let the genie out of the bottle, Bill, can you give us a time frame as to when we are likely to hear all the down-and-dirty?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,589
379
283
Easley South Carolina
>>> Yes. Of course I do.

In addition, I've met the second shooter on the Grassy Knoll in Texas, seen Jimmy Hoffa's grave, flown on Amelia Airheart's airplane, and have an extremely rare copy of the missing eighteen minutes of the Watergate tapes. <<

A simple "no" would have sufficed Patrick.
wink.gif


Bill, I'm with Lee on this. Do you have any more information on this group that you can share?
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
0
166
Michael S.

Pardon a belated relpy...back to a 10 hr. seven-day work week...no time for the fun things.

Never was I implying that an oceanographic vessel was armed. The fact, which is supported by WHOI is that the 1986 Ballard led expedition to the TITANIC was purposely shawdowed by a USN fighting *vessel*.

I did not enquire as to the name of the particular ship, and not aware if WHOI will even disclose this information.

The WHOI people are just a keyboard away...check for yourself!

Michael Cundiff
USA
 

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
1
146
As I recall, it was the US Navy vessel Ortolan. I seem to recall it being referred to as a submarine rescue vessel, though I'm not sure. The presence of that ship is well documented; both Ballard and Pellegrino refer to its presence in their books; Pellegrino (for what it's worth, which may not be much) implies that Ortolan used its status as a naval vessel to ward off curious passers-by. (e.g. "This is the U.S. Naval Vessel Ortolan and we're conducting oceanographic research here") It supposedly saved Atlantis II from having to reveal its identiy a number of times.

Michael C, are you saying there was a second US Navy ship there?

James Smith
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,589
379
283
Easley South Carolina
Not that I'm aware of. Something appears to have happened, but there haven't been any developments since...which doesn't surprise me if the development that somebody is looking for is another expedition. The conditions in that part of the North Atlantic can and often are downright melevolant so there's only a small window of opportunity...say about three months...where diving operations can be safely carried out.

As this tends to be in the summertime, if anyone goes out there this year, it'll have to be fairly soon.
 

Lee Gilliland

Member
Feb 14, 2003
511
0
146
I'm kind of wondering what happened to all this, as if I recall correctly, there were supposed to have been some arrests made. Has anyone else heard anything? Michael's post was last July - surely SOMETHING has happened since?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,589
379
283
Easley South Carolina
If it has, nobody's advertising. That or the media doesn't really care a whole lot about it. They got their headlines and if anything came up afterwards, they probably said "It's been covered" and moved on to other things of much greater import.

Like Brittney Spears 55 hour long marraige!
smoke.gif
<sar/c>