I don't think the French were involved in the "search" for the Subs. It was merely a test of Ballard's Argo system. Its a shame Ballard (whose knowledge of the Titanic is flimsy and has milked the story for all he is worth, and revered as near God-like by some) didn't make this clear. But then, what do you expect from Nat Geo and their "non-story" of the so-called real reason for the search for the Titanic?
But Ballard himself was telling this "search for the subs" story years ago! It was in a UK documentary called "Battle for the Titanic" (I think) about 2001.
Ballard is also a NatGeo favourite. I think they waited until 1985 because it was only at that time that remotely controlled camera packages that could take images viewable from the surface became available, and the Navy wanted to test it. According to the late Michael Davie's book, during a trip to Ballard's home at the time (Woods Hole) in early 1986, a spokesman confirmed that finding the Titanic would be a great boost showing the world that such programmes existed. Yes, it also showed the Russians who was boss too.
The US Navy knew where its two subs were in the 1960s; indeed, the bathysphere Trieste was sent down to examine one of them! This backstory of the US Sub search was mention in Ballard's heavily ghost-written autobiography and, even in the 1986 Omni magazine interview with Ballard, it was referred to (where the search for the Titanic was mentioned as "an unofficial search").
Still Ballard has been doing well on the gravytrain, grandstanding and taking nearly all the credit. Just look at all the specials dedicated to him and his ego. The late undersea explorer Ralph White bemoaned Ballard, saying that he wishes that he would give credit where its due and not just act in a "me me me me me" attitude all the time. And don't forget the French covered 80% of the search area, and their participation is hardly mentioned at all. With Ballard, it was originally "how we found the wreck"; now its "how I found the wreck." Without the French, Ballard would never have found the wreck at all...
...or would he? Did Ballard know where the wreck was all the time and sent the French searching in the wrong direction? Its a question that I have researching for many years, without a definite answer so far: was Ballard the first to find the Titanic? Have a look here:
http://www.paullee.com/titanic/titanicfound.html
This was the basis for an episode of the BBC drama series Doomwatch in the early 1970s. The bacteria was heralded as a way of disposing with plastic litter... until it escaped into the wild. Well worth watching IMHO.
Why is this offtopic? I despair of people who want to donate to software groups (or even campaigns to keep "Star Trek" going) rather than organisations who genuinely need every penny to keep going.
Since the article is about publicising a book (which is well worthwhile), let me interject my own publicity, of my own book about the Titanic, which is a pdf book comprising 326 A4 pages, illustrated with diagrams and photographs, and distributed via email or CD.
My book is very different from the CSI/Forensic book on the sinking, as it focusses on a ship ("The Californian") that was nearby and reputedly saw the Titanic's distress rockets. 24 hour wireless watch was not mandatory, and the operator had gone to sleep for the night. The watch officers kept a patient watch of the other ship, observing her rockets going off at intervals, and sending messages down to their snoozy captain in his cabin below the bridge. Apart from a few cursory questions, the captain went back to sleep and was not roused until well after the disaster, when the wireless operator was also awakened.
Meanwhile, on the Titanic, a ship was seen off the port bow, and distress rockets were sent up. Watching the other ship through binoculars, the officers on the doomed liner noticed no response and the effort to communicate with the other ship was given up.
The Californian tried to help the next day, but it was too late and she resumed her passage to Boston. On arrival there, the Captain, Stanley Lord, gave a highly over-exaggerated story of his rescue attempt, but there were was mention of rockets, until a couple of indignant crew members told their stories to the press and relatives on-shore. The cat was out of the bag, and both US and UK inquiries in 1912 declared that the Californian had seen the Titanic and had ignored her calls for help. Lord denied this to his dying day, always believing that there were two ships in the area that night; one seen by the Titanic, and the other by the Californian. Re-appraisals in 1965, 1968 and 1990-92 have only served to muddy the waters.
My ebook discusses the confusing testimony and how it altered over time; why did Lord and his officers' attempt to disguise the truth of the matter?; why did one of the Californian's watch officers declare that the ship he saw was steaming away, at a time when the Titanic was stopped, and why did he lie about the rockets?; why did the other officers give blatantly untruthful accounts under oath?; why did authors in recent years use dishonest tactics to exonerate Lord by suppression of evidence and legal practises?; and, the ultimate question- could Captain Lord have saved any of the 1500 victims at all? The answer may surprise you.
IMS, the cost difference between Dell Linux and Vista laptops was not very much, even though the cost of the OS's was significant...can we expect the same in this case?
I am writing my own ebook, which I have decided to market myself, without any support or help from anyone. I decided to write such a tome because the deals given to authors, unless you are an established author, like Patricia Cornwell etc., is incredibly poor. For instance, a friend of mine writes books on ocean liners. They sell for about £15 (approx. $30). For every 1000 sold, he gets just £1000! By "doing it yourself", you get to keep just about all the cash, less postage and CD costs etc.
I haven't yet decided whether I shall be selling copies of my book on ebay or amazon, but this report gives me cause for concern.
Well, this has certainly garnered the highest Slashdot reply I've ever seen!
As such, I can't wade through over a thousand replies, so heres a question (feel free to mod this as redundant if already
asked): but since Mohammed supposedly lived hundreds of years ago, any depictions of him are artists impressions. So, how
can Moslems get hostile about an image that doesn't necessarily reflect reality? If I were to post a picture of Santa Claus,
George Lucas or any other bearded fellow, and relabel it "Mohammed", would I be charged with crimes against religion?
Slashdot Mirror
Still Ballard has been doing well on the gravytrain, grandstanding and taking nearly all the credit. Just look at all the specials dedicated to him and his ego. The late undersea explorer Ralph White bemoaned Ballard, saying that he wishes that he would give credit where its due and not just act in a "me me me me me" attitude all the time. And don't forget the French covered 80% of the search area, and their participation is hardly mentioned at all. With Ballard, it was originally "how we found the wreck"; now its "how I found the wreck." Without the French, Ballard would never have found the wreck at all...
Sounds SCO-itis is catching.
2H + 2H ----> 4He
- no neutrons "lost" at all.
Theres apparently going to be a big protest on June 14th 'At A City Near You'.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKN0228397020080506?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews
Isn't this where the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" came unstuck with Dan Brown?
My book is very different from the CSI/Forensic book on the sinking, as it focusses on a ship ("The Californian") that was nearby and reputedly saw the Titanic's distress rockets. 24 hour wireless watch was not mandatory, and the operator had gone to sleep for the night. The watch officers kept a patient watch of the other ship, observing her rockets going off at intervals, and sending messages down to their snoozy captain in his cabin below the bridge. Apart from a few cursory questions, the captain went back to sleep and was not roused until well after the disaster, when the wireless operator was also awakened.
Meanwhile, on the Titanic, a ship was seen off the port bow, and distress rockets were sent up. Watching the other ship through binoculars, the officers on the doomed liner noticed no response and the effort to communicate with the other ship was given up.
The Californian tried to help the next day, but it was too late and she resumed her passage to Boston. On arrival there, the Captain, Stanley Lord, gave a highly over-exaggerated story of his rescue attempt, but there were was mention of rockets, until a couple of indignant crew members told their stories to the press and relatives on-shore. The cat was out of the bag, and both US and UK inquiries in 1912 declared that the Californian had seen the Titanic and had ignored her calls for help. Lord denied this to his dying day, always believing that there were two ships in the area that night; one seen by the Titanic, and the other by the Californian. Re-appraisals in 1965, 1968 and 1990-92 have only served to muddy the waters.
My ebook discusses the confusing testimony and how it altered over time; why did Lord and his officers' attempt to disguise the truth of the matter?; why did one of the Californian's watch officers declare that the ship he saw was steaming away, at a time when the Titanic was stopped, and why did he lie about the rockets?; why did the other officers give blatantly untruthful accounts under oath?; why did authors in recent years use dishonest tactics to exonerate Lord by suppression of evidence and legal practises?; and, the ultimate question- could Captain Lord have saved any of the 1500 victims at all? The answer may surprise you.
See my website at http://www.paullee.com/book_details.php for more details.
IMS, the cost difference between Dell Linux and Vista laptops was not very much, even though the cost of the OS's was significant...can we expect the same in this case?
I haven't yet decided whether I shall be selling copies of my book on ebay or amazon, but this report gives me cause for concern.
Incidentally, the URL for information on my ebook is at http://www.paullee.com/book_details.php
This story was featured on the BBC's "Horizon" science programme about 7 or 8 years ago!
http://www.rtforum.co.uk/
As such, I can't wade through over a thousand replies, so heres a question (feel free to mod this as redundant if already asked): but since Mohammed supposedly lived hundreds of years ago, any depictions of him are artists impressions. So, how can Moslems get hostile about an image that doesn't necessarily reflect reality? If I were to post a picture of Santa Claus, George Lucas or any other bearded fellow, and relabel it "Mohammed", would I be charged with crimes against religion?
Paul
--
Pre-order my new ebook on the Titanic disaster here: http://www.paullee.com/book_details.php