codeorama Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 For those not knowledgeable of the issue, I'll do a little recap... Robert Ballard discovered the wreck of the titanic 20 years ago, but didn't claim it as his own under maritime law. Because of this, it allowed another person to claim the wreck of the titanic and salvage whatever they could and either sell it or put it in museums. Ballard is dead against that, saying it's a grave site etc... Any opinions? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040603/ap_on_en_tv/ap_on_tv_visiting_titanic_1 Telecast Takes Viewers to Titanic's Grave Thu Jun 3, 3:31 PM ET By FRAZIER MOORE, AP Television Writer NEW YORK - If a penny saved is a penny earned, on Monday you can earn yourself a cool $30,000. That's been the going price to plunge 12,000 feet to the North Atlantic seabed for a glimpse of the Titanic through the peephole of a cramped submersible. AP Photo Related Links Robert Ballard Returns to the Titanic (NPR) But Monday at 9 p.m. EDT, you can get a good look at the RMS Titanic on live TV. You won't have to leave the house. And it won't cost you a cent. Maybe you're feeling richer already! Airing on the National Geographic (news - web sites) Channel, "Return to Titanic" will take you on a scientific quest led by Robert Ballard, the marine explorer who found the sunken ruins of that luxury liner nearly 20 years ago and has since been championing her cause. "This is a Super Bowl with 14 live cameras," said Ballard, seeming almost as excited by the technology as by the expedition's overriding purpose. But the real reason for the 11-day mission, he hastened to add during a recent chat, calls for scientists to map the ship and measure its deterioration since he last visited with a film crew a year after its discovery on Sept. 1, 1985. The 32-member expedition team is already hard at work gathering and analyzing video of the wreckage from aboard the Ronald H. Brown. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research vessel is now positioned over the site some 325 miles off the coast of Newfoundland. "Return to Titanic" will originate from there, with ABC correspondent Jay Schadler on deck as host. But the most thrilling part of the hour-long program is sure to be live transmissions from the bottom of the sea, courtesy of multiple cameras perusing the wreckage from a trio of robotic vehicles dubbed Hercules, Little Herc and Argus. Dispatched to inspect the Titanic from various perspectives (including interior probes), these remote-controlled devices are tethered to the Ronald H. Brown by fiber-optic cable, with their high-definition video beamed to the watching world by satellite. By comparing these newly captured images to film shot in 1986, "we can show you exactly what's happened in 20 years," Ballard said, "and then analyze the damage: Is that Mother Nature at work? Or is it the hand of man?" But the condition of this famous wreck will convey a larger message. "Our going back to the Titanic will get people to think not just about that ship, but about all human history in the ocean," Ballard predicted. "I believe there's more history in the deep sea than in all the museums of the world combined. But it's a free-for-all, and what's there is in peril. "Can you imagine the Metropolitan Museum of Art being up for grabs, and anyone who enters it can take whatever they find?" Since Ballard's science-driven quests in 1985 and '86, the Titanic, he said, has received only visitors bent on "making a movie, selling tours or plundering." So far, salvage operations have cost the Titanic more than 6,000 of its artifacts. Ballard has long pushed for an international agreement to protect the Titanic and other shipwrecks as permanent memorials, with each of them available to visitors in a convenient, noninvasive way — through what he calls "telepresence." On Monday's program, "I'm going to show you in the comfort of your home beautiful, high-quality live exploration of the Titanic without your having to go there," he said. "I want to demonstrate that the Titanic is easily accessible, and has a much stronger statement to make, where it is: Something happened THERE, on that hallowed ground." What happened, of course, was the Titanic's death blow the night of April 14, 1912. Its hull was ruptured by an iceberg, and more than 1,500 passengers and crew members — about two-thirds of those on board — perished when, less than three hours later, it sank to its final resting place. Just a few days into its maiden voyage, the Titanic was a floating palace, the largest moving object ever made, guaranteed to be unsinkable. Almost a century has passed, proving the Titanic truly unsinkable as a cautionary tale: human error on an epic scale, with tragedy to match. As much now as ever, it fascinates and haunts — a fact certainly not lost on director James Cameron (news) or the millions who watched his film dramatizing the disaster. "The Titanic, because of its status, serves as a forum for us to talk about even bigger things," said Ballard, who intends to do just that with Monday's telecast. "We're a cultured society, and we don't destroy our history — even if it's under water." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Is the Titantic that big of a deal to be considered a historic artifact? People have been robbing grave sites for centuries and nothing was done to stop them. Hell most famous artifacts from Egypt are in England or Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark327 Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 The Titanic's resting spot at the bottom of the ocean should be off limits to salvagers IMO this is a grave site and the people who died on board should be left to rest in piece . i would have to agree with Ballard on this :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 I think we should stop digging for Dinosaur bones, those creatures should be able to rest in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 4, 2004 Author Share Posted June 4, 2004 I'm torn on the issue, I can see both sides equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofer Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 Now, I am against going to the local cemetery to dig people up and steal the valuables that they were buried with. That's just ghoulish and wrong. I guess you could apply that to the Pharoh's graves in Egypt. Sort of. I guess. But with that you have to take the historical and educational aspects into consideration. The Titanic is a different story - there are no bodies there. A lot of you on this board have decided that God does not exist. If God does not exist, then you cannot have the spiritual world either (can't have it both ways, nope, can't) so there are not any ghosts down there either. No bodies, no ghosts, no harm no foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 I have no opinion on the issue, but I do have a question. What about the families of the people who died, wouldn't they be able to claim items belonging to their deceased relatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 The people actually died over a mile away from where the ship is now. There should be no human remains left trapped inside the ship. Is it really a grave site? My house is a mile away from a cemetary but I am not sitting in one. This is a tough one but, I think due to the historical significance surrounding the titanic it shouldn't be considered a grave site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 I think the wreck should be explored only, no relics removed. If only out of respect for the people that died. The Titanic is their headstone. Leave it be. ( On a little side note, it seems that Ballard, and James Cameron have this little "Titanic" rivalry going on now. Just last winter we got "Ghosts in the Abyss," from Cameron during which he explored deeper into the vessel than anybody had gone, and now Ballards offering this? A new, yet even DEEPER exploration into the ship. A little EGO involved here, perhaps? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 I think the Titantic's resting place should remained untouched. It's like the resting site of the Yorktown from battle of Midway. To take items for profit from the ship is wrong. If something can be saved for preserving history is a completely different story. I don't see people digging up Gettysburg! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Why should it remain untouched? Those people are dead and gone, I am sure they won't mind one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofer Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Originally posted by riggins44 I think the Titantic's resting place should remained untouched. It's like the resting site of the Yorktown from battle of Midway. To take items for profit from the ship is wrong. If something can be saved for preserving history is a completely different story. I don't see people digging up Gettysburg! You don't see eople digging up Gettysburg anymore, because it was picked clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Originally posted by SkinInsite Is the Titantic that big of a deal to be considered a historic artifact? People have been robbing grave sites for centuries and nothing was done to stop them. Hell most famous artifacts from Egypt are in England or Germany. The unsinkable ship. Maiden voyage. Wealth galore on board. Yes, it is that big of a deal. If you grandparents were on board that ship, or your parents or sister or brother, I would hope you would not say: Why should it remain untouched? Those people are dead and gone, I am sure they won't mind one bit. So you are saying it is ok to allow scavengers in the debris of 9/11? And please don't begin to yell and say it is NOT the same thing. I am talking about each being a disaster where lives were lost and families devastated. My opinion only. I dont agree with someone gaining off the misery of someone else. Blondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.