The Third Piece


Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote by Ballard from article: ``They found a fragment, big deal,'' Ballard said. ``Am I surprised? No. When you go down there, there's stuff all over the place. It hit an iceberg and it sank. Get over it.''

Sheesh! What's up with the attitude?!?! lol. I won't say anything more about Ballard and this little quote here as it's not the right place.
happy.gif


It's nice to see that Parks has been busy and is involved with this latest discovery. I remember in 'Discovery Of The Titanic' there was a graph that showed a large section missing from the ship. Nice to see that parts have been found.
 
An abbreviated version of this article appeared on the AT&T news page. I prefer the Boston Globe's version as it's a bit more complete. Why they're trumpeting the bit about the third piece as "new" is anybody's guess as it's existence has been known since the time of the expedition when the Big Piece was raised.

The take on it's pointing to a faster sinking is a bit of a new wrinkle as far as I know, but I could be mistaken on that. Since Parks was there for the conference, I'd be interested in hearing his input on this.
 
Folks,

I led this expedition for The History Channel. Expedition members have been bound by a confidentiality agreement since August, so I am glad to see the silence has finally been broken.

I am surprised by Ballard's comment that this is merely a "fragment." One of the pieces comprises approximately 10% of the bottom of the hull. That's a little bit bigger than a fragment!

The most exciting part about these pieces is not that they were found, but that they were studied in detail for the first time, digitally mapped and filmed in digital HDTV.
 
According to the Boston Globe article, the History Channel special will air February 26.

The article also quotes ET members Parks Stephenson and Dave Brown.

Denise
 
Hopefully, Parks will have something to say about this.

But - I read the CNN article, and it seemed like a bunch of non-news to me. We've known about a third piece for years! I've called it "the Bigger Piece", and I first recall hearing about it from Roy Mengot, at the THS convention on the Queen Mary in 1997. I think Roy or someone else, said this piece *was* photographed by Ballard in 1986.

And David Brown's comment about the stern taking 20 minutes to go down is old - especially if you've gotten a look at Dave's timeline (work in progress).
 
Yep...caught the February 26th date as I re-read the article this morning. (Must be getting old if I'm missing things like that.) This is a date I'm going to mark on my calander. As far as Dr. Ballard's attitude goes, well, that's on him. Perhaps if he pays closer attention to the details, he may change his mind.
 
The CNN article seems to imply that the Titanic community previously thought that twenty minutes elapsed between the break and the time the stern went under.

I'm not familiar with David Brown's work, but I don't recall anybody ever making such a claim. Everything I've seen indicates that the interval was very short--maybe five or ten minutes at most.

Has David been misquoted? If not, what originally led David to such a bold conclusion?

--Jim
 
Maybe Dr. Ballard is starting to realize that the Titanic story is bigger than any one person?

There have been at least 20 expeditions to the wreck site since the Titanic was discovered in 1985. Dr. Ballard has been part of three. His contribution has been important, but it is not exclusive. Lots of people have contributed to our understanding of the ship and its sinking, but few of them have gotten any real credit. I would like to see that change.

Dr. Ballard must be feeling a little cranky after seeing PH Nargoelet's letter, and realizing that a lot of people share the sentiments expressed therein. Maybe he is feeling like his contribution to the history of exploration of the Titanic is becoming more and more of a "fragment" every day, and he doesn't like it? Just my two cents...
 
>>Has David been misquoted?<<

In this case, not likely, though I suspect it's out of context. He proposed the twenty minutes as the time it took for the stern section to sink a couple of years ago and has discussed his reasons for that in this folder. I don't recall which thread it is. What prompted him to change his mind I can't speak to, but knowing David, you can be reasonably certain he had a substantially good reason for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top