Narked1
Full Member
OK, read this thread twice and have to put my 2-cents in (more like 25-cents actually since I don't post that often, but you guys got me started). First let me start by saying that this is one of the reasons that I keep coming back to the TN forum.....thought provoking discussion (10% of the time....Cablava, are those figures right?).
Reading the thread here I can agree, and disagree, with all sides to some degree. Ballard should have filed an Admiralty claim, The US courts (and government) should take responsibility for the site if it wants to have its courts rule on ownership (have to ask here....where are the other 150 countries that signed the agreement on control of international waters, and what are they doing?), and what about the country that has ownership of the Titanic? What have they done?
Ballard has indeed, salvaged items from the wreck. At a huge cost as well. He should be entitled to some sort of reimbursement for those salvage costs. Whether it is from reimbursement from placing the items on display, or from salvage reimbursement from the owners of the ship. As far as salvaging everything and anything from the ship I would imagine that that would be an on-site call from Ballard. If they were to find remains with a gold wedding ring with a huge diamond attached, for example. I would like to think that salvors such as Ballard would have enough respect to leave it where it was found. Yes, the ship is a grave, but then again.....
And RGecy is correct, would an Archy leave the same ring, or the remains, for that matter? Probably not. This is where I see the rough spot as being. And GB asked the question early on in this thread. Is this wreck historic? In many ways it is, in some ways it is not. It is historic in the fact that it was billed as the "Unsinkable Ship", and then it hit an iceburg and sank. That is part of our modern history, and thus should be considered a moment in history. On the other hand, it was a ship lost at sea (with loss of life albeit, as most ships are historically), and it was after all, just a ship that was carrying immigrants and no major treasure trove. Not to belittle the loss of life, but as compared to numerous other maritime disasters, when a ship sinks loss of life can be expected. (I refer you to the recent ferry sinking in the Red Sea with over a thousand lives lost, and the seemingly frequent ferry sinkings in the far east....are they to be considered historic wrecks because there was loss of life?) The Titanic should not be considered historic solely for the number of people who lost their lives during the sinking, although sad as it was. But rather for what it taught us about modern shipbuilding (compartmentalization) and the need for adequate lifesaving facilities (lifeboats). I'm sure that there are many more reasons that the wrecksite should be considered historical but I am not qualified to say. And I know that the comparmentalization and lifeboat issues mentioned above do not qualify a wrecksite to be considered historic.
The Titanic was a moment in time in our early 20th century history that modern history will always be remembered by some. The movie just reminded us of it. My personal opinion is that the Titanic organization or Ballard, or whoever, should be allowed to salvage artifacts from the site and place the artifacts on display until such time as they recover their salvage costs plus a bit of profit for their efforts. As has already been mentioned, they went out and did it. Nobody else did. Hats off to them and my thinking is that they should be rewarded for it because nobody out there in the international governmental community will sponsor a government team to go out and do what they have done.
Just my thoughts. Feel free to blast me and tell me how wrong I am (I kinda like that...that's how I learn from you folks :-)
In closing, although this may be "only" a shipwreck. One of the more historical aspects of the ship is that there are many Americans that came to the States that are children and grandchildren of people that where lost, or survived, the sinking of the Titanic. Artifacts that are found, and if ownership of the individual that owned them can be proven, then the artifacts should be returned to them gratis. For them, it is still a part of their history. This is a tough argument and I agree with whoever said in the chain here that the courts in Norfolk have come to the best conclusion that they can. There are too many other issues involved with this case, some of which I'm sure that we don't know about.
Reading the thread here I can agree, and disagree, with all sides to some degree. Ballard should have filed an Admiralty claim, The US courts (and government) should take responsibility for the site if it wants to have its courts rule on ownership (have to ask here....where are the other 150 countries that signed the agreement on control of international waters, and what are they doing?), and what about the country that has ownership of the Titanic? What have they done?
Ballard has indeed, salvaged items from the wreck. At a huge cost as well. He should be entitled to some sort of reimbursement for those salvage costs. Whether it is from reimbursement from placing the items on display, or from salvage reimbursement from the owners of the ship. As far as salvaging everything and anything from the ship I would imagine that that would be an on-site call from Ballard. If they were to find remains with a gold wedding ring with a huge diamond attached, for example. I would like to think that salvors such as Ballard would have enough respect to leave it where it was found. Yes, the ship is a grave, but then again.....
And RGecy is correct, would an Archy leave the same ring, or the remains, for that matter? Probably not. This is where I see the rough spot as being. And GB asked the question early on in this thread. Is this wreck historic? In many ways it is, in some ways it is not. It is historic in the fact that it was billed as the "Unsinkable Ship", and then it hit an iceburg and sank. That is part of our modern history, and thus should be considered a moment in history. On the other hand, it was a ship lost at sea (with loss of life albeit, as most ships are historically), and it was after all, just a ship that was carrying immigrants and no major treasure trove. Not to belittle the loss of life, but as compared to numerous other maritime disasters, when a ship sinks loss of life can be expected. (I refer you to the recent ferry sinking in the Red Sea with over a thousand lives lost, and the seemingly frequent ferry sinkings in the far east....are they to be considered historic wrecks because there was loss of life?) The Titanic should not be considered historic solely for the number of people who lost their lives during the sinking, although sad as it was. But rather for what it taught us about modern shipbuilding (compartmentalization) and the need for adequate lifesaving facilities (lifeboats). I'm sure that there are many more reasons that the wrecksite should be considered historical but I am not qualified to say. And I know that the comparmentalization and lifeboat issues mentioned above do not qualify a wrecksite to be considered historic.
The Titanic was a moment in time in our early 20th century history that modern history will always be remembered by some. The movie just reminded us of it. My personal opinion is that the Titanic organization or Ballard, or whoever, should be allowed to salvage artifacts from the site and place the artifacts on display until such time as they recover their salvage costs plus a bit of profit for their efforts. As has already been mentioned, they went out and did it. Nobody else did. Hats off to them and my thinking is that they should be rewarded for it because nobody out there in the international governmental community will sponsor a government team to go out and do what they have done.
Just my thoughts. Feel free to blast me and tell me how wrong I am (I kinda like that...that's how I learn from you folks :-)
In closing, although this may be "only" a shipwreck. One of the more historical aspects of the ship is that there are many Americans that came to the States that are children and grandchildren of people that where lost, or survived, the sinking of the Titanic. Artifacts that are found, and if ownership of the individual that owned them can be proven, then the artifacts should be returned to them gratis. For them, it is still a part of their history. This is a tough argument and I agree with whoever said in the chain here that the courts in Norfolk have come to the best conclusion that they can. There are too many other issues involved with this case, some of which I'm sure that we don't know about.
