controversy.gif (6229 bytes)
My view on the salvage of artifacts is simple, if they are taking the items from the debris field then I am all for it, but if they are destroying the wreck to remove items then that is wrong.  I think the ship should be left in tact for as long as possible, that way future generations will be able to go down and see this wonderful ship.  As the ship continues to deteriorate, and starts to fall apart, then and only then will think it is ok to dig deeper.  When I say fall apart, I mean that the superstructure fails and it collapses into a big pile of rubble.  I know a lot of people feel this is the gravesite for the 1500 people that died, and indeed it is their tombstone, but if bringing back artifacts help keep us aware of the tradegy and help future generation learn from it, then I say we owe it to ourselves to do it.

The one thing I am against is the selling of any of the artifacts, and that includes the coal.   I think everything that is brought up should be restored and put into travelling museums all around the world.  I welcome your views and if you have another view or compelling point, I will be happy to publish it in this area.

Kim from Ohio says: (received from the official list of for more information, click here)

I am in favor of salvage of the wreck.  At first I had very mixed feelings about it.  I wasn't sure that it was right to disturb what in all rights is a grave.  But then I learned about a family that never knew they had a connection with the Titanic until a suitcase was brought up.  They discovered that there were family letters in this suitcase that opened up an intimate relationship for them with the Titanic.  Also, If there are some families still looking for closure to their loss after all these years, and a piece that is brought up can bring it to them, I am all for it.  I believe that it is important that future generations can continue to keep Titanic and her memory alive.  Without the salvage of artifacts would this happen?  Or would she continue to disintegrate at the bottom of the ocean and be forgotten.

I don't agree with removing anything from the structure of the ship itself and I really don't know that anyone should dig deeper into the wreck once she collapses, they may find things they really don't want to.  What is entombed inside the wreck should be left undisturbed. On Tuesday night I attended a lecture at the University of Akron, Ohio by Dr. Ballard.

He briefly discussed Titanic and his views on removing artifacts (which we all know what his viewpoint is) and then went on to discuss his discovery of the ancient mariner and how he and his team DID remove artifacts and DID remove sections of the vessel and he was quite please with this accomplishment.  This left me feeling that he was a bit of a hypocrite.  How is removal of artifacts from this vessel any different then removing artifacts from Titanic?  This after all is also a grave to those who died
during it's sinking and wasn't that his whole stand on Titanic artifacts and their removal?

nav4.gif (1477 bytes)