Treasure hunters!

[radinator]

Stop skirting around the subject. I don't like greed, if you can't tell, so lets stop talking about what a terrible person I am and maybe discuss if taking things of ships for your personal use is ok, because it isn't. If we're judging people by their actions, then Mel Fisher is just making money and having a good public image at the same time. A museum is something that is useful for getting real science off your back. I don't think splitting up the finds from any wreck for antiquities is alright, and that is what he is doing.

Well, here we have a philosophical difference. I see greed as a way of getting things done. It motivates people to do things. You will probably disagree with this, but I think that Thomas Edison (inventing for greed) did much more for humanity than Mother Theresa (not working for greed) ever did. Through the inventions he created for greed, he saved many more lives than she did (and continues to do so), all around the world through his inventions. Her activities were focused in one area of one city.

(And don't get it into your head that I'm 'dissing' Mother Theresa, but in the comparison your condemnation of greed is rather unenlightened. There is a legitimate viewpoint that greed is a valuable and useful motivator.)

If it weren't for Mel Fisher looking for the gold, the ship would have never been found. There would be nothing to research. It took him 20 years of searching. If he had to use the gold to finance his explorations, so be it. Better he pays for it out of his own pocket for the chance of discovery then charge the taxpayer for his pet interest with little chance of success.

 

[TheFoggyMask]

The wrecks were deemed insignificant by a group of commercial independent divers hired by the government. The government took their suggestion, and the local SCRET team looked into the matter and found that one was an example of kind of boat that much information was lacking on details. http://www.scret.org/Vessels/Vessels.htm

Further, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. I'm trying to be civil here.

The debris of a shipwreck is not comparble to that of a car accident. Car accidents happen in areas of high usage and have to be cleaned up for the saftey of drivers. Planes are cleaned up in search of answers for details of the crash and victims bodies. Ships that wreck in high traffic areas are dynamited or towed out of the way.

Ships that are out of the way, for one, create a habitat for life. On the Sampson, 350 feet down, Red Snappers, a very rare Pacific Northwest fish, live where they have all but vanished everywhere else. Hiding places for baby fish and anchor points for plumose anenomes! A perch for a lingcod!

Shipwrecks are time capsules of the past. While a modern day ferry for example might not be anything spectacular to us now future divers will appreciate the detritus from an earlier age. I don't know about anyone else, but my crystal ball is out of batteries and I cannot say for absolutely certain that in the future there will be a massive decline in technical diving and technology increases, leading to nobody being around to enjoy what we've saved. Little details about our modern day culture will be preserved in new wrecks, as unfortunate as it is, and culture about the past and nautical technology is likewise preserved.

Now, what gives you permisison to take items off a ship for yourself? Why should we demolish a wreck?

 

[TheFoggyMask]

Well, here we have a philosophical difference. I see greed as a way of getting things done. It motivates people to do things. You will probably disagree with this, but I think that Thomas Edison (inventing for greed) did much more for humanity than Mother Theresa (not working for greed) ever did. Through the inventions he created for greed, he saved many more lives than she did (and continues to do so), all around the world through his inventions. Her activities were focused in one area of one city.

(And don't get it into your head that I'm 'dissing' Mother Theresa, but in the comparison your condemnation of greed is rather unenlightened. There is a legitimate viewpoint that greed is a valuable and useful motivator.)

If it weren't for Mel Fisher looking for the gold, the ship would have never been found. There would be nothing to research. It took him 20 years of searching. If he had to use the gold to finance his explorations, so be it. Better he pays for it out of his own pocket for the chance of discovery then charge the taxpayer for his pet interest with little chance of success.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I believe that a ship of such significance would have been discovered with or without Mel Fisher. Even if there was no gold on board.

 

[radinator]

What personal attacks?

 

[TheFoggyMask]

And who deemed them 'culturally insignificant'? Was it treasure hunters, or was it those government bureaucrats and scientists you idolize?

Let me guess. You're a Democrat, aren't you?
(yes, that's a joke)

Don't deviate from the subject, I'm waiting for an actual reply beyond a one liner.

 

[neophyte]

TheFoggyMask, you realize that you're arguing with a rocket scientist, right?

I tend to agree with him w/r/t the subject at hand, but I can sympathize with your (somewhat disjointed) point of view.

It reminds me a lot of the sorts of attitudes I had toward greed vs collectivism, and capitalism vs socialism and such when I was a year or two into my udergraduate education. It was Ayn Rand that woke me from my dogmatic slumber.

I'm not saying she has all the answers or anything, but if nothing else, some of them are great novels and they're certainly classics that should (IMO) be considered essential reading for anyone interested in 20th century philosophies.

Any of these would be a great place to start:

Atlas Shrugged

The Fountainhead

The Virtue of Selfishness

 

[radinator]

The wrecks were deemed insignificant by a group of commercial independent divers hired by the government. The government took their suggestion, and the local SCRET team looked into the matter and found that one was an example of kind of boat that much information was lacking on details. http://www.scret.org/Vessels/Vessels.htm

Further, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. I'm trying to be civil here.

The debris of a shipwreck is not comparble to that of a car accident. Car accidents happen in areas of high usage and have to be cleaned up for the saftey of drivers. Planes are cleaned up in search of answers for details of the crash and victims bodies. Ships that wreck in high traffic areas are dynamited or towed out of the way.

Ships that are out of the way, for one, create a habitat for life. On the Sampson, 350 feet down, Red Snappers, a very rare Pacific Northwest fish, live where they have all but vanished everywhere else. Hiding places for baby fish and anchor points for plumose anenomes! A perch for a lingcod!

Shipwrecks are time capsules of the past. While a modern day ferry for example might not be anything spectacular to us now future divers will appreciate the detritus from an earlier age. I don't know about anyone else, but my crystal ball is out of batteries and I cannot say for absolutely certain that in the future there will be a massive decline in technical diving and technology increases, leading to nobody being around to enjoy what we've saved. Little details about our modern day culture will be preserved in new wrecks, as unfortunate as it is, and culture about the past and nautical technology is likewise preserved.

Now, what gives you permisison to take items off a ship for yourself? Why should we demolish a wreck?

Your main points here
1. Shipwrecks are time capsules.
2. provide a habitat for life

These also apply to my yogurt container if I throw it in the ocean. Or an old shoe. Or a bicycle, or anything that fills an everyday landfill.

I'm assuming you don't advocate that other trash dumped put into the ocean? It's the difference in your mind I don't get.

Car wrecks are cleaned up, even in remote areas. Not just because they are in high-traffic areas.

I enjoy diving wrecks. I also enjoy junkyards. I don't see a big difference between them. They are both a bunch of litter that hasn't been cleaned up. I have a philosophical consistency about the way I think about them.

 

[TheFoggyMask]

Your main points here
1. Shipwrecks are time capsules.
2. provide a habitat for life

These also apply to my yogurt container if I throw it in the ocean. Or an old shoe. Or a bicycle, or anything that fills an everyday landfill.

I'm assuming you don't advocate that other trash dumped put into the ocean? It's the difference in your mind I don't get.

Car wrecks are cleaned up, even in remote areas. Not just because they are in high-traffic areas.

I enjoy diving wrecks. I also enjoy junkyards. I don't see a big difference between them. They are both a bunch of litter that hasn't been cleaned up. I have a philosophical consistency about the way I think about them.

Car accidents are cleaned up because they are a hazard (leaking fluids, gasoline, oil) and cars are much easier to clean up and recycle. Even in remote areas a car accident is going to be hazardous. Roads need to be clear and, again, this is not a fair comparison. Car accidents are not time capsules, the cars involved are going to be less than 20 years old and are a danger to other drivers. Cars are a very recent invention, and to my knowledge, have so far been highly well documented. The ocean and the land are different enviroments, and should be treated differently.

The toss zone from a dock or a shore does provide habitats to an extent, an old boot, bucket, anchor, and while I would not ask people to throw garbage into the ocean, I would not remove these items from around a dock. The enviroment below a dock is very unique, minus the actual waste like old diapers. If the waste you're dumping into the ocean is potentially hazardous or just going to foul the water it needs to be removed and is not ok. Junk in the range of human toss zones is not going to always be appropriate. In delicate areas such as reefs I would have very little tolerance of junk in the water since the life is so fragile.

Junkyards are not a fair comparison to a wreck. Junkyards are areas where people have purposefully accumulated things that they want to throw out. The owners of junkyards will allow you to browse through their old cars for things that can be potentially useful and sometimes will charge you a fee. Shipwrecks are not junkyards. Shipwrecks are not landfills. Shipwrecks are shipwrecks.

Your thinking of shipwrecks are garbage and uncleaned accidents is not the case. What use do you have for an old life preserver or piece of hardware from a ship? It could instead be enjoyed because it helps add to the snapshot in time effect. Calling shipwrecks garbage is incredibly belittling to their value. I might go so far and say that you're being small in your thinking. Its of no use to me, so who cares? I don't think there is any way for me to change your mind or give you a glimpse of my mind. I could easily extend your disregard for the past by saying that if I come upon a pile of stones in Greece that all I've found is a pile of rocks, waiting to be cleaned up. Other ruins? Just things we haven't built over yet. Accident scenes from the past.

Some people care about the world and some people care about themselves.

 

[TCDiver1]

I believe that a ship of such significance would have been discovered with or without Mel Fisher. Even if there was no gold on board.

Considering where most of these ships were, you would have a better chance of getting hit by lightning, twice, even if you didn't have any gold on.

 

[DennisS]

Further, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. I'm trying to be civil here

Sure you are, where do you get off calling Bob Weller a clown. He's got a degree in engineering, ex UDT and knows more about wrecks than you ever will.

He writes books about them. He has a good book on Spanish Cob coins. He has numerous other books on the 1715 shipwrecks you might find interesting if you are into maritime history. He's been working and studying the 1715 fleet for years and shares the information. He runs seminars and gives lectures.