Titanic 2010 Expedition

[Subfiend]

Is anybody following it?

They have the full array of instant contact tools available to them this year - Facebook, Twitter, MSNBC and The Weather Channel here in the U.S. It's not like when I was out there, when we could only get e-mail once a day, weather permitting, if we pointed the laptop-sized sat phone up to the heavens in the right direction. E-mail attachments were as rare as ice cream, even on my last trip five years ago.

[TheVTCGuy]

No sub, but I would really like to. Can you point me in the right direction?

[Subfiend]

Official web site: http://www.expeditiontitanic.com/

FB page for 2010 expedition: http://www.facebook.com/rmstitanicinc?ref=ts

FB page for 2000 expedition, which has a lot of my photos: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...0576754&ref=mf

My FB page has photos from all three of my Titanic expedition.

[Subfiend]

You better start following it soon. They're about to get blown out by Hurricane Danielle.

[Rogue884]

Relic hunters, not a fan. The science that has come from it is indespensible, but the artifact recovery is a disgrace.

[Subfiend]

Originally Posted by Rogue884

Relic hunters, not a fan. The science that has come from it is indespensible, but the artifact recovery is a disgrace.

Many people share your opinion, although millions that have seen the artifact exhibit apparently disagree. This is a science expedition.

By the way, the did have to leave the site today because of the hurricane.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Rogue884

Relic hunters, not a fan. The science that has come from it is indespensible, but the artifact recovery is a disgrace.

Really? During the late 70s (shows you how old I am, but at least I was only in my teens) I was a diver on the Great Lakes; we did search and recovery and salvage. I agree wtih you the dismantling of a national treasure for the recovery and sale of artifacts is wrong, but do you know the artifacts recovered from the Titanic are NOT sold? (With the exception of pieces of coal from the coal bunker). These items are displayed in exhibits shown around the world. Yes, there is a charge for entry in to the exhibit, but artifacts are NOT sold.

I hear people claim we should respect the 1000+ people that died on that terrible night and not disturb thier resting place. How can we better respect them but to NOT forget them? That ship and it's artifacts will eventually just dissapear in to a lump on the bottom of the ocean 5 miles below the surface. Who will remember the victims then? I have been to the exhibit many times, it is a somber experience and one I will never forget. IMHO, it is done very well and it brings home the terrible experience those poor souls went through. The groups that bring up artifacts and show them to us now in exhibits maybe are making a profit from the entry fee (I honestly don't know) but they are showing (in a very tasteful and serious way) us that horrible event almost 100 years ago, making sure we WILL remember those poor souls.

Would you prefer we just ignore the ship, let it disintigrate in to nothing and leave all those artifacts where no one will ever see them, and those people be forgotten?

[BarkMaster]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Would you prefer we just ignore the ship, let it disintigrate in to nothing and leave all those artifacts where no one will ever see them, and those people be forgotten?

Good points, Paul.

[Rogue884]

Originally Posted by 777

Good points, Paul.

Not really:

I have been a diver for over 25 years, and maybe its the old cave diver in me, but I believe in leave no trace. I look at the individual who would scrawl his name on one of the wall of a beautiful cave the same way I would a relic hunter, whether its diving for plates on the Andrea Doria or the HMS Titanic. Quite frankly the fact they put a tasteful exhibit on is disturbing in itself, its a grave, no different from the USS Arizona or the Edmund Fitzgerald. The legitimacy of the retrieval can't be made by the tastefulness of the exhibit. The families of the 1500 who perished have voiced their dissatisfaction with RMS Titanic Inc over and over again, and took legal action that lead to the courts in 1992 to begin a long drawn out battle over the following decade.

The folks over at RMS Titanic Inc are putting on the exhibits, and they are profiting from the artifacts collected. Its the same company that salvaged 1800 artifacts from the ship between 1993 and 1995 with considerably unscrupulous practices, legally and archeological. If it hadn't been for the US and Canada initiating legal intervention in 1995 they would have picked it bone dry for profit.

If the exhibits were about the memory of the perished, there are better ways to memorialize the ship and the 1500 that perished, build a museum. Consider the residual profits from the unending exhibits, no matter how tasteful they are in comparison to the one time sale of an artifact. Essentially they get to sell the artifacts over and over again. Even if using the profits from those exhibits were to strictly continue their "Research," ie: funding more expeditions is there only goal, there are better ways to finance it. Fact is we the American and Canadian people are financing the expeditions through scientific grants for microbiological, oceanographic, and maritime archeological studies through NOAA and Woodshole mainly. Its a business for RMS Titanic Inc, and the business is called salvage, a very lucrative one at that. If it weren't, the original owners George Tulloch wouldn't have so vigorously fought Allan Carlin for ownership of the company when they thought they were going to win salvage rights in the courts. Now its about publicity and boosting sales to their exhibits since federal courts have prohibited them from selling the artifacts.

If RMS Titanic was truly interested in promoting the memory of the ship and its 1500 who perished, they could donate the artifacts to the Smithsonian or the Canadian National Museum, who I am sure would maintain the artifacts for posterity of the families and ship. We are getting great scientific information from HMS Titanic without taking artifacts, and expeditions since Robert Ballards have been videoing and photographing the wreck extensively, in fact in 2007 a complete 3-D mosaic of the ship was completed and an IMAX film created.

Its victims and survivors will not be forgotten, and the ship will eventually disintegrate to the sea floor, and we should respect the site as a grave. We don't need artifacts to hold it in reverence or to prove its existence. We have professional videography and photography documenting it from many expeditions; they only need artifacts to make a profit.

[Subfiend]

Originally Posted by Rogue884

Not really:

I have been a diver for over 25 years, and maybe its the old cave diver in me, but I believe in leave no trace. I look at the individual who would scrawl his name on one of the wall of a beautiful cave the same way I would a relic hunter, whether its diving for plates on the Andrea Doria or the HMS Titanic. Quite frankly the fact they put a tasteful exhibit on is disturbing in itself, its a grave, no different from the USS Arizona or the Edmund Fitzgerald. The legitimacy of the retrieval can't be made by the tastefulness of the exhibit. The families of the 1500 who perished have voiced their dissatisfaction with RMS Titanic Inc over and over again, and took legal action that lead to the courts in 1992 to begin a long drawn out battle over the following decade.

The folks over at RMS Titanic Inc are putting on the exhibits, and they are profiting from the artifacts collected. Its the same company that salvaged 1800 artifacts from the ship between 1993 and 1995 with considerably unscrupulous practices, legally and archeological. If it hadn't been for the US and Canada initiating legal intervention in 1995 they would have picked it bone dry for profit.

If the exhibits were about the memory of the perished, there are better ways to memorialize the ship and the 1500 that perished, build a museum. Consider the residual profits from the unending exhibits, no matter how tasteful they are in comparison to the one time sale of an artifact. Essentially they get to sell the artifacts over and over again. Even if using the profits from those exhibits were to strictly continue their "Research," ie: funding more expeditions is there only goal, there are better ways to finance it. Fact is we the American and Canadian people are financing the expeditions through scientific grants for microbiological, oceanographic, and maritime archeological studies through NOAA and Woodshole mainly. Its a business for RMS Titanic Inc, and the business is called salvage, a very lucrative one at that. If it weren't, the original owners George Tulloch wouldn't have so vigorously fought Allan Carlin for ownership of the company when they thought they were going to win salvage rights in the courts. Now its about publicity and boosting sales to their exhibits since federal courts have prohibited them from selling the artifacts.

If RMS Titanic was truly interested in promoting the memory of the ship and its 1500 who perished, they could donate the artifacts to the Smithsonian or the Canadian National Museum, who I am sure would maintain the artifacts for posterity of the families and ship. We are getting great scientific information from HMS Titanic without taking artifacts, and expeditions since Robert Ballards have been videoing and photographing the wreck extensively, in fact in 2007 a complete 3-D mosaic of the ship was completed and an IMAX film created.

Its victims and survivors will not be forgotten, and the ship will eventually disintegrate to the sea floor, and we should respect the site as a grave. We don't need artifacts to hold it in reverence or to prove its existence. We have professional videography and photography documenting it from many expeditions; they only need artifacts to make a profit.

Generally, I don't get involved in this debate, but I have to tell you your facts are almost all wrong. I have been intimately involved with this issue since 1998, directly with many of the people and companies you mentioned in your post. Among other things, I have fought the legal battles, advised many of the companies and expeditions, participated in three Titanic expeditions, made four dives to the wreck site, recovered artifacts and participated in the science. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but PM me if you would like additional and correct facts that you can base it on.

[Rogue884]

The facts that could possibly need clarification would be the fact that RMS Titanic Inc purchased 1800 artifacts and the salvage rights from Titanic Ventures, however they salvaged 800 more artifacts in 1993 and 1000 more in 1994, which actually puts the count at 3600 artifacts. The majority of my post is opinion regarding the memorialization of the site, and the facts that have been stated are from public information, specifically Archeological Institute of America's Review.

[BarkMaster]

Originally Posted by Rogue884

I would love to know what facts are wrong. The majority of my post is opinion regarding the memorialization of the site, and the facts that have been stated are from public information, specifically Archeological Institute of America's Review.

And I respectfully disagree.

[Rogue884]

Originally Posted by 777

And I respectfully disagree.

and that is your right

Here is a good read from Ricardo Ella it was published in the Archeology Review in 2000

http://www.archaeology.org/online/fe...nic/index.html

[Subfiend]

This is my article describing the expeditions and legal battles up to 2000:

http://www.davidconcannon.com/public...albattles.html

Titanic Ventures sponsored only one expedition, in 1987, when 1,800 artifacts were recovered. RMS Titanic, Inc. was formed in 1991 when a competiting salvage company tried to get salvage rights. RMST won the rights because it promised the Court it would maintain the artifacts as a collection and not sell them individually. The families, Canada and US had nothing to do with it.

In 1995, Canada, the US, UK and France started discussing an agreement to regulate salvage at the site. It is only an agreement, it carries no legal weight. To date, only the UK has ratified it. The US has guidelines for operations at the site, but they are not mandatory. I have been with reps of the State Dept and NOAA at the site to show them how operations are conducted.

The AIA is not the only source, and certainly not the most authoritative. I know Mr. Elia. I like him, but I would not call him objective. His opinions about activities at the Titanic site are similar to those that Sarah Palin holds about President Obama.

More than 5,000 artifacts have been recovered to date.

[Ed Rooney]

I saw a bunch of the stuff years ago at the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore and it was an outstanding exhibit. It made a very tangible history lesson.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Ed Rooney

I saw a bunch of the stuff years ago at the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore and it was an outstanding exhibit. It made a very tangible history lesson.

My point exactly.

I know Subfiend and believe his quotes. I don't know you Rogue, but I can't argue the legal points you have brought up, for all I know you may be 100% correct! I was a professional diver for many years, in my late teens, in college and a year before being accepted in Navy flight school. I have recovered victims from drowning, shipwrecks, (SS Cederville sunk in 65, two divers lost in 75 (ish), we got one but never found the other) I have brought up aritfacts, etc. professionally. If you believe we should leave everything where people have died as is, that is your opinion, and I won't argue. If you feel everything that is on the bottom of the Ocean should stay there, you're entitled to that opinion as well, but let me tell you about the exhibit I have visited many times.

The whole experience is extremely somber. The lights are low, the atmosphere... respectful. They had a vat of running water that was at the temperature the Ocean was the night and spot the ship went down. Visitors were encouraged to place their hand in it to feel what those poor people jumped in to, when they had no other choice. There was an entire wall made of frozen CO2, ice that felt similar to the iceberg that sank the ship. There were personal items. I remember looking at a pair of recovered spectacles from some poor-poor man, that probably died that terrible night. I couldn't help but wonder who he was? Did he have any family that survived? Did he possibly survive? Lots of questions. There were other personal items as well, all very tastefully displayed. A child's toy, a briefcase, sitting there, in front of the display case barely 6 inches from my eyes. They had movies, interviews with survivors, pictures etc.

And when you walked out, there was the (of course) gift shop, where you could buy books on the Titanic, photos, DVDs etc. But NO artifacts (except for the lumps of coal). I believe the entry fee for the exhibit was $20.

I walked out of that place with a new ... respect(?) feeling(?) I am not sure of the word, but somehow I felt closer to those poor victims from 100 years ago. It was a very moving experience.

You're upset that Titanic is making a profit on this? You're entitled. But I tell you the exhibit they have is respectful, interesting, and intended for the customer to REMEMBER THE VICTIMS, not oogle at a bunch of 100 year old antiques. We won't forget them? Sure, kids can read in a book right now about what happened, watch movies, but being in that exhibit, seeing those items inches from your eyes, it brought the events of that night and those poor victims as close as one can get to experiencing what happened. You think they would get the same experience in a musuem? I don't think so, but am not an expert so won't argue with you there either. The point is, they are not in a musuem, they are with this company doing exhibits around the world. Are they making a profit showing them? Probably, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that it is extremely tastefully and respectfully done; they made you think... about those poor people.

[Rogue884]

Originally Posted by Subfiend

This is my article describing the expeditions and legal battles up to 2000:

http://www.davidconcannon.com/public...albattles.html

Titanic Ventures sponsored only one expedition, in 1987, when 1,800 artifacts were recovered. RMS Titanic, Inc. was formed in 1991 when a competiting salvage company tried to get salvage rights. RMST won the rights because it promised the Court it would maintain the artifacts as a collection and not sell them individually. The families, Canada and US had nothing to do with it. Actually according to public record in 1986 the Congress passed the RMS Titanic Martitime Memorial Act, that the same year Ballard placed the plaque and publicly urged the wreck to be undisturbed, along with public protests from Eva Hart

In 1995, Canada, the US, UK and France started discussing an agreement to regulate salvage at the site. It is only an agreement, it carries no legal weight. To date, only the UK has ratified it. The US has guidelines for operations at the site, but they are not mandatory. I have been with reps of the State Dept and NOAA at the site to show them how operations are conducted. Yes, that was the Titanic Agreement, but according to public record that was because of the intended salvage of the wreck. It eventually lead to the Guidlines for Reasearch, Exploration, and Salvage by NOAA in 2000

The AIA is not the only source, and certainly not the most authoritative. I know Mr. Elia. I like him, but I would not call him objective. His opinions about activities at the Titanic site are similar to those that Sarah Palin holds about President Obama. I do agree that the AIA is not the only source, but considering the arguement, its Salvor verses Preservationist

More than 5,000 artifacts have been recovered to date. That makes it better

That would assume that Sarah Palin is wrong...

Unfortunately there is a serious divide in the diving community regarding treasue hunting / artifact diving. Again, in my opinion its a grave, diving it for posterity and research is absolutely acceptable to me, but not removing the artifacts. Though the AIA is biased toward preservation, they absolutely should be. Maybe my personal feelings may go back to that old rivalry between Cave Divers and NE Cowboy wreck divers. I never thought highly of the "Chase for the Plate," I was always more a "Leave no trace" kinda guy.

Oh well,

[Rogue884]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

My point exactly.

I know Subfiend and believe his quotes. I don't know you Rogue, but I can't argue the legal points you have brought up, for all I know you may be 100% correct! I was a professional diver for many years, in my late teens, in college and a year before being accepted in Navy flight school. I have recovered victims from drowning, shipwrecks, (SS Cederville sunk in 65, two divers lost in 75 (ish), we got one but never found the other) I have brought up aritfacts, etc. professionally. If you believe we should leave everything where people have died as is, that is your opinion, and I won't argue. If you feel everything that is on the bottom of the Ocean should stay there, you're entitled to that opinion as well, but let me tell you about the exhibit I have visited many times.

The whole experience is extremely somber. The lights are low, the atmosphere... respectful. They had a vat of running water that was at the temperature the Ocean was the night and spot the ship went down. Visitors were encouraged to place their hand in it to feel what those poor people jumped in to, when they had no other choice. There was an entire wall made of frozen CO2, ice that felt similar to the iceberg that sank the ship. There were personal items. I remember looking at a pair of recovered spectacles from some poor-poor man, that probably died that terrible night. I couldn't help but wonder who he was? Did he have any family that survived? Did he possibly survive? Lots of questions. There were other personal items as well, all very tastefully displayed. A child's toy, a briefcase, sitting there, in front of the display case barely 6 inches from my eyes. They had movies, interviews with survivors, pictures etc.

And when you walked out, there was the (of course) gift shop, where you could buy books on the Titanic, photos, DVDs etc. But NO artifacts (except for the lumps of coal). I believe the entry fee for the exhibit was $20.

I walked out of that place with a new ... respect(?) feeling(?) I am not sure of the word, but somehow I felt closer to those poor victims from 100 years ago. It was a very moving experience.

You're upset that Titanic is making a profit on this? You're entitled. But I tell you the exhibit they have is respectful, interesting, and intended for the customer to REMEMBER THE VICTIMS, not oogle at a bunch of 100 year old antiques. We won't forget them? Sure, kids can read in a book right now about what happened, watch movies, but being in that exhibit, seeing those items inches from your eyes, it brought the events of that night and those poor victims as close as one can get to experiencing what happened. You think they would get the same experience in a musuem? I don't think so, but am not an expert so won't argue with you there either. The point is, they are not in a musuem, they are with this company doing exhibits around the world. Are they making a profit showing them? Probably, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that it is extremely tastefully and respectfully done; they made you think... about those poor people.

Its not upsetting, it is just something I am very fervernt about. As a Profressional Diver also I have seen the ravages of wreck sites by salvors, especially those looking for scrap. Obviously I will defer to Subfiend predicated on his personal experiance with the parties involved, as I have nothing at stake other than personal opinion, but there has been a continuing public legal battle surrounding the wreck and the recovery of its artifacts.

Personally, I look at wrecks sites like the Edmund Fitzgerald, the USS Arizona, RMS Titanic as grave sites. Look at what was done with the Edmund Fitzgerald by Canada, diving is prohibited without permission and the only artifact that was recovered was the bell at the request of the families of the 29 lost, and it was placed in memorial at the Maritime Museum. I also think if the RMS Titanic was within US or Canadian waters it probably wouldn't be an issue either.

I am a preservationist in this arguement.

[Subfiend]

The RMS Titanic Memorial Act expresses the sense of Congress that the wreck should remained undisturbed. That's it.

Dr. Ballard initially wanted to salvage the wreck and display artifacts in a museum, but the US Navy turned him down. Some say he wanted to ban future visits to the wreck site in 1986 because he had the only photos at the time and they were extremely valuable. The French were his partners in 1985, but they returned to the wreck site in 1987 to salvage specifically because they were angry at Ballard for not sharing credit and photographic rights in 1985. The 1987 charter agreement specifically forbid the sale of
"artifacts", but the contractual definition of artifacts did not include "treasure."

The plaque Ballard placed on the bow on his last dive was given to him by The Explorers Club, which I represented in the litigation that restored access to the Titanic for research, exploration and photography. I was successful. Then I was hired by my opponent, RMST, to organize its 2000 expedition to the wreck site and deal with issues related to the international agreement. I later helped NOAA and State get out to the wreck site, and I was on the first NOAA expedition.

I have no personal or professional qualms about recovering artifacts from the Titanic. when I did so, it was done legally and professionally, udder the guidance of a professional curator. I have seen with my own eyes what Mother Nature is doing to the wreck site and artifacts, and I know that the best way to preserve the Titanic is NOT to leave things on the bottom.

[Subfiend]

One last thing: the Edmund Fitzgerald still has bodies on it, the RMS Titanic doesn't.

I respect your opinion Chris, I just disagree with it. I realize that this is a little like arguing about religion. However, having been close to the heart of this debate for so many years, I know the argument is not about preservation. It's about control. Nothing more and nothing less.

[TheVTCGuy]

the best way to preserve the Titanic is NOT to leave things on the bottom.

X 2

And the current way they are being displayed is respectful to the victims.

[djhiram]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

X 2

And the current way they are being displayed is respectful to the victims.

X2 Paul. I have read over this entire thread and totally agree with your posts. I was fortunate enough to visit the Titanic exhibition in Manhattan last year and was blown away. It really is an incredible experience from beginning to end. At the beginning of the exhibit, patrons receive a boarding pass of an actual passenger on Titanic. On the back of each boarding pass is the age and the itinerary of that person. At the end of the tour, patrons find out if he or she survived the Titanic by finding the name on the wall memorial. I remember feeling a lot of the same things you did Paul. Who was this person whose name is on this pass? What was he really like? What were his hobbies? Was this person aware of what was going on soon enough to make it off the ship alive or did they pass away that night? I can't really describe it.

The exhibit includes passenger quotes. The one that stuck with me the most was from Jack Thayer, a first-class passenger: “There was no moon and I've never seen the stars shine brighter,” he said. “It was the kind of night that made one feel glad to be alive.”

One thing is to read about it in books, but it's another thing completely to walk through life size models of what the actual first class hallways looked like; to actually step into a 3rd class stateroom; and to be able to take a photo standing on a life size reproduction of the first class staircase complete with the stained glass dome overhead and the famous wall clock.

It truly was an amazing experience. Thanks Paul for bringing back those incredible memories.

[TheVTCGuy]

Thank you Hiram! And you are right about the names on the ticket, I totally forgot. I am afraid my passenger was one of the victims...

Maybe these guys are making a profit, but what they are delivering to the public is (IMHO) a far better tribute then leaving the stuff on the bottom of the Ocean.

[Rogue884]

Fair enough Sub

[Subfiend]

At the end of my first dive, I recovered a suitcase. It turned out to be full of books and other personal items owned by a second class passenger named Edgar Samuel Andrew, a 17 year old boy who was lost and never recovered. A few years later, when the exhibit came to his family's hometown, his family came forward with a letter he had written on April 10, 1912. He was upset that he would miss his friend's visit to England because the White Star Line had moved him to the Titanic from another ship sailing later. He wrote:

"I am about to go on the greatest liner in the world, but right now I wish the Titanic were lying on the bottom of the ocean."

Five days later he got his wish. As I said, his body was never recovered. I am glad I was able to bring back a little part of his life 90 years later. His family was grateful, even though his heirs today never knew him.

[Subfiend]

Here is my photo through the sub's porthole of the recovery of Edgar Samuel Andrews' bag:



Here is a link to the owner's bio:

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...el-andrew.html

Here is what the letter actually said:

You figure Josey I had to leave on the 17th this (month) aboard the "Oceanic", but due to the coal strike that steamer cannot depart, so I have to go one week earlier on board the "Titanic". It really seems unbelievable that I have to leave a few days before your arrival, but there's no help for it, I've got to go. You figure, Josey, I am boarding the greatest steamship in the world, but I don't really feel proud of it at all, right now I wish the 'Titanic' were lying at the bottom of the ocean.

The letter was actually posted on April 8, 1912, not April 10, 1912 as I originally said. Sorry about that. Mistakes can happen when you are typing on an iPad without the benefit of your morning coffee.

[TheVTCGuy]

Wow.... that's all I can say is... wow....

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Subfiend

At the end of my first dive, I recovered a suitcase. It turned out to be full of books and other personal items owned by a second class passenger named Edgar Samuel Andrew, a 17 year old boy who was lost and never recovered. A few years later, when the exhibit came to his family's hometown, his family came forward with a letter he had written on April 10, 1912. He was upset that he would miss his friend's visit to England because the White Star Line had moved him to the Titanic from another ship sailing later. He wrote:

"I am about to go on the greatest liner in the world, but right now I wish the Titanic were lying on the bottom of the ocean."

Five days later he got his wish. As I said, his body was never recovered. I am glad I was able to bring back a little part of his life 90 years later. His family was grateful, even though his heirs today never knew him.

And this proves my point! Edgar Samuel Andrew. His family got to see his personal belongings and learn about him, as did thousands of other people that would never have known the name, or that he even existed; he would have been a name on a list somewhere. Now, because of the recovery, we know about him, will remember him, and can pay respects. And no, that case, those books, were not sold like some tomb robber.

So it would be better for Mr. Andrew to just leave that on the bottom of the ocean where no one would ever see it? I don't think so.

[Rogue884]

As a preservationist, yes. This is a circular arguement.

[Ebruner]

As a Wreck Diver, a Indian Rock hunter, and avid Relic Digger, my opinion differs from most on this post.

I won't say anything other than if it is not dug up, salvaged, or hunted, it will turn back into earth and we would not have any of these treasures from the past.

-Eddie