On Tulloch and the Crow's Nest Bell
DavidN1327
"[F]rom Georgie's lips to God's ear!" tit...@jps.net.
No one disputes that the bell is the crow's nest bell, just that it was
recovered from the debris field, not the mast, as evidenced by the very visible
ring of discoloration caused by the mud in which the bell rested for almost 80
years.
If the bell was attached to the mast when the bell was recovered, how would the
ring of discoloration have happened?
Besides, I thought that this mystery was solved some months ago....
Joe Knapp
Eric Seright-Payne wrote in message <355f76f6...@news.pacbell.net>...
> Georgie-boy's
Georgie-boy?
BTW, what's your preference--to see the crow's nest rust away in
place? To leave the bell on the ocean floor?
"In 200 years, in 2,000 years, some child will be able to look at the
bell and say 'gee, that's the bell. That's the bell from the
crow's-nest that Frederick Fleet rang three times warning of an
iceberg..."
I say, thanks Mr. Tulloch. It's a great artifact. Although it could
have been recovered at any time I guess, being brass and
likely to last a very long time.
Joe
Joe Knapp
Eric Seright-Payne wrote in message <355fde59...@news.pacbell.net>...
>"Joe Knapp" <j...@worldnet.att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Eric Seright-Payne wrote in message <355f76f6...@news.pacbell.net>...
>>> Georgie-boy's
>>
>>Georgie-boy?
>>
>>BTW, what's your preference--to see the crow's nest rust away in
>>place? To leave the bell on the ocean floor?
>
>Yes.
On my first point, I find it hard to read any post
which uses the expression "Georgie-boy."
How about "Georgie Peorgie puddin' and pie"
for variety?
On the rusting in place, I don't see the advantage.
The crow's nest and most of the ship is being
destroyed by oxidation as we speak. Any artifacts
recovered from the site will offset this. I think the
strategy should be to maximize the amount of
information about the wreck, and slow or stop
its deterioriation. Unfortunately we are all mortal
and everything willl go to dust eventually, but the
process can be slowed by recovering pieces.
I think that RMS Titanic will be going back to the
wreck site this August to recover the massive
piece of hull which they failed to raise back in
1996. They should get it this time, and it will
be a great piece of evidence. The piece
can be seen at http://www.titanic-online.com/gallery/abyss/bigpce.htm
>Or at least to have RMS T adhere to their own stated policy of
>"salvaging" only from the debris field - which, in the same segment
>Arnie Geller mentions, quite prominently.
Any recovered object that was oxidizing certainly has been
salvaged, without the need for quotes. I realize that some
have issues with salvaging items from what they deem to be
hallowed ground. Some might even oppose the excavations
at Pompeii. But in terms of the objects, they clearly are
salvaged.
I don't know the history of promises that the aquanauts have
made about their procedures. Certainly they should live
up to their word.
>And failing that, as the allure and temptation are great... to at
>least have the common courtesy to wait to salvage items from the ship
>(or personal items of passengers) until there are no living survivors
>left.
I don't think that is any kind of common precedent regarding
wreck sites. I'd guess it's more of a personal theory about how
people should treat them. There is no common law in this area
of "waiting until they are all dead" is there? I can't think of
one example.
>>I say, thanks Mr. Tulloch. It's a great artifact. Although it could
>>have been recovered at any time I guess, being brass and
>>likely to last a very long time.
>
>Huh???
>
>You seen the capstans? Still gleaming... still fully shining...
>
>Bronze and brass are lasting quite well....
Don't know what you mean here. Didn't I say above that
the brass is lasting quite well (not that it does anybody any
good for the brass bell to be sitting under two miles of
water)?
Joe
Eric Smith
"Joe Knapp" <j...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Eric Seright-Payne wrote
>> Georgie-boy's
>Georgie-boy?
It seems to be some kind of rule among those with anti-Tulloch sentiments
that he can't be mentioned without using some kind of demeaning adjective
or pejorative to describe him.
>BTW, what's your preference--to see the crow's nest rust away in
>place? To leave the bell on the ocean floor?
>"In 200 years, in 2,000 years, some child will be able to look at the
>bell and say 'gee, that's the bell. That's the bell from the
>crow's-nest that Frederick Fleet rang three times warning of an
>iceberg..."
>I say, thanks Mr. Tulloch. It's a great artifact. Although it could
>have been recovered at any time I guess, being brass and
>likely to last a very long time.
I second your opinion.
By the way, I should mention that I am now not entirely merely an
interested bystander in the salvage debate, as I recently bought some
stock in RMSTI. Not that I agree totally with Tulloch's actions or
methods, but I do think that the better way to ensure that he continues
on the path of preservation is to support that work rather than to
criticize it. The main reason for my investment, though, is the idea
that I may get more of an inside view on the state of the business
end of what he's doing.
-----
Eric Smith | "They were like travellers unwillingly
erics @netcom .com | returned from brilliant realms, not yet
http://www.catsdogs.com | adjusted to their return." - Olivia Manning
This was posted with an altered address to thwart bulk email programs.
To respond by email, take out the ".remove.this" part.
Eric Smith
I don't know what the truth is about the crow's nest bell, but I do know
that Ballard almost destroyed the crow's nest himself on his very first
expedition to the Titanic when his unmanned camera sled nearly ran under
the mast. On his second expedition the submersible he was in accidently
collided with a davit block, showering them with a rain of rust particles.
He describes these incidents in his book.
The ship is a wreck and it's in precarious shape. Any operations carried
out there involve the risk of some damage, whether the purpose is to
salvage items or just take pictures (or make movies). Some would say
that's a reason why no operations should be carried out there at all
but that's another debate.
DavidN1327
"...Georgie-boy...," tit...@jps.net.
I agree. It's difficult to believe anything Eric Seright-Payne writes with such
perjorative sprinklings added for good measure. I might think "Eric-Baby" when
I see his name, but to publish it would cast doubt and suspicion on everything
else I might write. I've resisted.
"According to a person [who] is appearing in public with Muffet Brown, a
descendent of Molly ... according to Karen at the Molly Brown House in Denver,"
tit...@jps.net.
Why not tell us who it is if this person is apparently so well known and your
claim of who said what isn't disputed? To write this
"friend-of-a-friend-knows-a-friend-who-works-with-somebody-who-overheard-s
omething" is just plain insulting to those of us trying to make sense of the
story.
"Since [RMS Titanic Inc.], refuses to release any information concerning their
inventory of 'salvaged artifacts,'" tit...@jps.net.
Once <<again>>, RMS Titanic Inc. is a publicly traded company that owes nothing
to anyone other than the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Internal Revenue Service; the company's reports have been made lawfully and are
available for public review (sec.com). To ask for anything more detailed than
these reports is like asking Boeing Corp. or IBM Corp. to tell you what's in
their inventories. It just won't happen, nor should it. You're asking for
proprietary information.
WLambrukos
>It seems to be some kind of rule among those with anti-Tulloch sentiments
>that he can't be mentioned without using some kind of demeaning adjective
>or pejorative to describe him.<<
Or to constantly attack him in a cowardly manner of using "un-named sources"
so one can't be proven as being a little loose with the facts.
Bill
Joe Knapp
Eric Smith wrote in message ...
>By the way, I should mention that I am now not entirely merely an
>interested bystander in the salvage debate, as I recently bought some
>stock in RMSTI.
Tempting, given that you can get 1000 shares
for only about $1300. Cool ticker symbol too: SOST.
But a look at their price history doesn't inspire
much confidence. It was dead in the water
at about 1/2 for over a year, before the movie
(and museum visits generated) caused it to
shoot up to two dollars in February. Since then
it's been trending down again (as interest wanes
I suppose), now at 1-1/3. There seem to be
similar events in the stock's past, where the
price briefly goes on a wild gyration before
settling all the way back down again. There
may be sinister explanations for this.
To wit:
Last week, the SEC filed suit against Paul J.
Montle, CEO of LS Capital Corporation,
a mining exploration holding company
formerly known as Lone Star Casino Corporation.
In addition to charges of stock shenanigans
involving spin-offs, a May 14 Dow Jones story
states that "Montle and Carol Martino, the
owner of a New York corporation called CMA
Noel, also manipulated the price of RMS Titanic
Inc. (SOST) stock in the first 2 1/2 months it
traded in 1993, the SEC alleges. RMS Titanic
owns the salvage rights to the celebrated wreck
and puts on shows of Titanic artifacts. Montle,
a promoter for RMS Titanic, and Martino
controlled the initial supply of the stock, protected
the initial market maker from substantial loss, and
paid brokers to generate artificial demand for the
stock, according to the suit."
LSCC was spun off from an AIDS-testing
outfit called Viral Testing Systems, Inc. Yet
another lawsuit charges Montle with looting
VSTI's funds to bankroll a Colorado casino,
now in Chapter 11 to the tune of $1-10 million.
Montle was also CEO of VSTI. This company
appears to have been a sham even in the
field of HIV testing.
RMS Titanic, Inc. itself was not named in the
lawsuit. The alleged price manipulation happened
five years and the current surge at least is backed
by strong financial results. Yet, shall we say,
confidence is not inspired?
One point to ponder: the entire market capitalization
for SOST is about $20 million (16.1 million shares).
Therefore, would it not be possible for
people really concerned about the company's
conduct to attempt to simply buy it out and remake
it in their own image? The "exclusive salvor"
license could be had for less than a tenth of the
cost of a certain recent movie. The balance sheet
is not too bad, and the P/E ratio is only about 10,
at least with the current record attendances in
St. Petersburg and Hamburg.
>Not that I agree totally with Tulloch's actions or
>methods, but I do think that the better way to ensure that he continues
>on the path of preservation is to support that work rather than to
>criticize it.
Could be. With encouragement maybe he can be kept to the
straight and narrow, despite missteps. My personal opinion is
that the current exhibiton of RMS Titanic is very well done.
>The main reason for my investment, though, is the idea
>that I may get more of an inside view on the state of the business
>end of what he's doing.
That's definitely a thought--perhaps a few shares is a small price
to pay for some interesting quarterly and annual reports.
Yep, all this capitalist talk makes me want to pour a glass of
sherry and light up a stogie.
Joe
jim burt
> Don't worry. He may join the wreck one day to......
Steve
Gp lenexa
Please retire to one of the smoking rooms. There is a nice one in first class.
Geri
>Yep, all this capitalist talk makes me want to pour a glass of<BR>
>sherry and light up a stogie.<B
Eric Smith
"Joe Knapp" <j...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Eric Smith wrote in message ...
>>By the way, I should mention that I am now not entirely merely an
>>interested bystander in the salvage debate, as I recently bought some
>>stock in RMSTI.
>Tempting, given that you can get 1000 shares
>for only about $1300. Cool ticker symbol too: SOST.
>But a look at their price history doesn't inspire
>much confidence.
Yes, however I figure with the price so low that even if it goes bust
I won't lose very much.
[ ... ]
>One point to ponder: the entire market capitalization
>for SOST is about $20 million (16.1 million shares).
>Therefore, would it not be possible for
>people really concerned about the company's
>conduct to attempt to simply buy it out and remake
>it in their own image? The "exclusive salvor"
>license could be had for less than a tenth of the
>cost of a certain recent movie.
Pretty strange considering Tulloch is such an "obscene profiteer,"
isn't it? :)
[ ... ]
>>The main reason for my investment, though, is the idea
>>that I may get more of an inside view on the state of the business
>>end of what he's doing.
>That's definitely a thought--perhaps a few shares is a small price
>to pay for some interesting quarterly and annual reports.
We'll see ... I'l keep you informed of any interesting tidbits I learn.
Michael Kuker
Correct if I'm wrong (and I know you will), but wasn't the crow's nest destroyed to
get at the telephone, and the mast destroyed when they removed the running light?
..mike
DavidN1327
"[W]asn't the crow's nest destroyed to get at the telephone, and the mast
destroyed when they removed the running light," mku...@shocking.com
No one knows how the crow's nest was damaged. I didn't know that the mast was
damaged, too.
wsi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <199805200009...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
the wreck in 1985. A comparison of video shot on Dr. Ballard's last
expedition and that used in "Return to the Titanic ... Live" clearly shows
that at some point the crow's nest was detached from the forward mast, split
in two, and set back in its place on the mast, presumably after the bell and
phone were removed.
The crow's nest is an important part of the Titanic story because, of course,
it was where Fred Fleet first spotted the iceberg. It's unfortunate that this
piece of history was destroyed in the search for artifacts. And it's
unnerving that the people involved would lie about it now.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
DavidN1327
"[I]t's unnerving that the people involved would lie," wsi...@my-dejanews.com.
Lie about what?
You wrote that the crow's nest was videotaped intact in 1985 and was later
videotaped damaged. No one claims otherwise, but where's the so-called lie?
The recovery company RMS Titanic Inc. has said that the telephone is from the
stern bridge and that the bell was recovered half-buried in mud in the debris
field as evidenced by the visible ring of discoloration on the bell.
If you're implying that RMS Titanic Inc. recoverers damaged the crow's nest,
where's your proof? Again, where is the so-called lie?
Eric Seright-Payne
In 1986/87 there was another Titanic television special, hosted by Doug Llewellyn -
of the original People's Court - shot aboard the Queen Mary, utilizing excess
footage from the "Return to the Titanic - Live" special of the previous year. This
was a syndicated special; in some markets, the show aired at two hours, in others
only a single hour. The show failed to achieve "saturation" - 90% of the viewing
public - and was a flop.
The two hour edition, however, when aired, clearly showed Nautile destroying the
crow's-nest recovering the bell. And those persons involved (Tulloch, the...
historians, et al.) make the comment, when the bell has been recovered of "holding
history in their hands."
It was after this that those persons in the "Titanic community" started complaining
of Tulloch doing one thing/saying another... in this instance: destroying probably
the single most historically important piece of Titanic, in order to obtain the
bell and telephone, after stating, quite publicly, Titanic Ventures (the name RMS
T, Inc., then worked under) they would limit their "recovery" to items in the
debris field.
It was also after this that George Tulloch appeared, with his then partner Arnie
Geller, in the A&E Titanic series; again, Geller stated RMS Titanic would be
limiting "salvage" to items in the debris field. But just after that, George speaks
of "the bell" and how, "200 years from now, 2000 years from now" a child would be
able to "look at the bell and say 'Wow. That's the bell from the crow's-nest that
Fleet rang three times..."
It was also around this time George Tulloch commented to Don Lynch and Ken
Marschall that Nautile HAD destroyed the crow's-nest retrieving these items... but
it was accidental.
Word quickly spread throughout Titaniacs, and the overall displeasure was
overwhelming.
Now, suddenly, the bell recovered isn't the crow's-nest bell, that Nautile dropped
into the debris field, accidentally and retrieved a year later, but rather a second
bell that was on the forward mast, somehow broke off during the sinking, and
magically ended up in the debris field through currents, backwash, or some other
means.
Never mind the physics of that don't make any sense... if it broke off during the
plunge, the bell would have been pushed back by the motion of water into the
structure itself... if it broke off after making impact with the bottom, it would
have fallen onto the deck. When those two simple scenarios are presented to RMS,
Titanic, the answer with: there is a strong current there....
Yet, for such a "strong current," until RMS Titanic recovered it, there was a
delicate, fragile, china tea cup sitting ontop a boiler... that wasn't dislodged
for 74 years.
In personal conversation with me, though George Tulloch believed he was speaking
with a potential new investor named "Jeff Stanton," Tulloch stated in re: the
phone, that the crow's-nest phone wasn't recovered... "in fact, a lot of people
don't know this, but the crow's nest phone is actually mounted inside the mast, and
is therefore unsalvagable."
Which is a crock... and one can still clearly see the wires dangling from the
destroyed crow's-nest that once were attached to the phone.
A few months back, there was a person by the name of Tom Beddingfield who claimed
to be an RMS Titanic, Inc, employee who stated he had been told, by Matt Tulloch
personally, that Nautile had, indeed, destroyed the crow's-nest while getting the
phone/bell, that Nautile had accidentally dropped the bell into the debris field
while ascending from its final dive of that expedition, and that RMS, Inc.,
re-recovered the bell from the debris field a year later.
The Tulloch's quickly stated this person was not an employee of RMS Titanic, Inc.,
Mr. Beddingfield publicly stated he was not an employee of RMS, Inc., and gave this
scenario of "the Titanic helped (me) when I was at my lowest point, emotionally.
I've been doing this (touring in a series of lectures), to give something back."
Yet, Mr. Beddingfield is touring with Muffet Brown, great-grandaughter of Molly
Brown. When the Molly Brown House, in Denver, was contacted, the general manager
there states they were also under the impression Mr. Beddingfield is an employee of
RMS Titanic, Inc. In fact Karen - the general manager - remembers, quite clearly,
Mr. Beddingfield's bonafides being being assured by Charles Haas.
So... someone's lying. The question becomes: "who"?
All these people, independent of each other, who have seen/been told firsthand/had
verified through independent sources of the activity which destroyed the
crow's-nest?
Or just the ONE person who doesn't want the rep of his company to be sullied?
Unfortuantely, RMS Titanic, Inc., owns the copyright on the Doug Llewellyn tape;
when it was released to the home market, it was the edited, one hour version.
But there are many, many of us who remember seeing the tape; there are a handful of
us who still have the tape of the original, two hour version.
There is another person who has a copy of the tape showing destruction of the
crow's-nest, but if he would publicly reveal it, the "conflict of interest" crowd
would start screaming, as that person is Dr. Robert Ballard.
And now, if RMS Titanic's latest lawsuit should be decided in their favor, they
would own all rights to all photogrpahs ever taken of the wreck of Titanic... if
they prevail, they and they alone would decide what anyone sees of the wreck site.
Now, grandfathering that into the above... why is it so important to RMS that they
win that suit? Hmmm? What is it they DON'T want you to see?
In the last few weeks, things have started turning up... Tulloch himself, on
videotape, claiming to have the bell... which puts to lie the later Tulloch
statements they don't have the bell.
A California Titanic historian found his tape of the Today show where author Gore
Vidal displays an artifact he was given by George Tulloch... which puts to lie the
later Tulloch statements that all recovered objects are in custody of RMS, Inc.,
and there are no privately owned "artifacts."
So, again, it comes down to a personal choice, I guess.
Who do you believe?
I know who I DON'T believe.
Eric Seright-Payne
Livermore, CA
90+ Pages of Titanic, the SHIP: http://www.jps.net/wseright
Coming to Atlantic City in July: TITANIC: The Experience