Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Dive to recover Lusitania artefacts


archangel9

Recommended Posts

What I do not understand is why a seasoned and reputable archaeologist would agree to work a site like this. Removing portholes does not add to our knowledge or understanding of what happened on the ship when she sank. I get their 'argument' about the importance of examining the telegraphs, but you do not have to remove them and take them to the surface to see what position they were last in. Anyone with any familiarity with wreck diving knows that for some wreck divers (and I am taking pains to not paint the community with one brush, as I know and respect quite a few wreck divers), the ship's telegraph is one of the prized shiny bits to be taken off a wreck, portholes being desired as well.

It has already been established that there were some munitions on board. What is cutting a hole in the side of this mass tomb going to do to help us analyze what happened that day?

As an aside, is the ship's bell still on the wreck? Or is that/has that been removed as well? The bell of course is the most desired shiny bit of all.

I would have had much more respect for all concerned if they had let this ship alone, and protected it from being further disturbed. Again, my opinion.

-Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that is the reason that he is lifting them, If salvage wreck divers know that all the items have been removed they will leave her alone. That was the reasoning that the British MOD gave for the removal of the gold cargo from HMS Edinburgh in the 1980's

Bemis has already stated that ALL items recovered will go to museums

Do we know that the munitions were responsable in any way for her sinking ? at the time it was thought that a boiler had exploded, which would explain her sudden lose of power.

I still find it strange that your ok with peoples personal items recovered from WTC being put on display in a museum, What is the purpose of showing these items ? They are of no historical intrest by themselves (you proberly have some of them in your own home) they just happend to be in the biggest lose of life on US soil. And yet against raising items (from where a handful of people will get to see them) and placing them where many people will see them

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bemis has already stated that ALL items recovered will go to museums

I have heard enough on Bemis and his intentions to be more comfortable with what he is doing. Agree that removing portholes does not seem to be the most serious first step in historical investigating. But my underwear is not in a knot.

Do we know that the munitions were responsable in any way for her sinking ? at the time it was thought that a boiler had exploded, which would explain her sudden lose of power.

The second explosion was enormous, the U-boat captain was astonished. If my memory is correct (and it is a bit foggy here), something like 300 feet of the hull was opened. (I may be wrong here.) I am sure that the Brits did not like the reports of a second explosion, and floated "the second torpedo" (they probably knew exactly how many torpedoes were sent; I bet 100 people saw the track of the first). As to a boiler "explosion", again snapping on my mechanical engineering hat, and knowing the unusual two-hull construction of the ship; a boiler explosion (which would be, in explosives terminology, a very "low-quality" explosion, if explosion is the term at all.) would probably not breech the inner hull; if it did, since there was no compartmentilization between the two hulls, the expanding steam could freely expand hundreds of feet fore and aft, up and down what amounted to a corridor hundreds of feet long, the idea of this by now low overpressure piercing the second steel hull against the external water pressure is, to me, inconceivable.

Whether other explosives went off is a very good question. (I dimly remember that the ship may have carried artillery ammunition, as well as the .303 rifle ammunition, which could not have sunk the ship. Shells could.) If the Brit book I cited is correct, and the outer hull was lined with bales of the type of gun-cotton (a very "high-quality" explosive), 350 tons worth, that explodes spontaneously on contact with sea-water, and that this explosive was wrapped in poreous burlap, the ship had been rigged so as to suffer an enormous explosion upon any breech of the hull at any point on its length on either side. If that report was true, the Lusitania had been purposely rigged as a big bomb.

The author also reported that, in the days before the sinking, both Churchill and the King had, during conversations with important foreign public figures, specifically asked what the effect would be on world opinion if the Lusitania was attacked and sunk.

Again, it would seem that these "explosive" (there goes my punning again) assertions could be readily supported or disproven. For example, the trial of the captain for, among other misdeeds, not zig-zagging, when a second set of signal transcripts emerged that corroborated that he had been radioed and ordered to cease zig-zagging, the official radio transscripts then being destroyed, should be in the public record of the trial, and easily corroborated or disproved in an afternoon..

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still find it strange that your ok with peoples personal items recovered from WTC being put on display in a museum, What is the purpose of showing these items ? They are of no historical intrest by themselves (you proberly have some of them in your own home) they just happend to be in the biggest lose of life on US soil. And yet against raising items (from where a handful of people will get to see them) and placing them where many people will see them

Grant

Grant,

I did not say I approve of these items being displayed. I said I did not have a problem with the items being collected in the course of the body recovery, which is quite different from what is happening with the Lusitania. I thought I was quite clear in my expression of personal distatse at the display of 9/11 artifacts, but I guess you missed that post I made.

Your unfounded allegation in a public forum that I have personal artifacts from victims of 9/11 in my home takes a hell of a lot of nerve, sir, and I believe an apology is in order.

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken from Wiki:

"Captain Turner gave evidence in England and now gave a more spirited defence of his actions. He argued that up until the time of the sinking he had no reason to think that zig-zagging in a fast ship would help. Indeed, that he had since commanded another ship which was sunk while zig-zagging. His position was supported by evidence from other Captains, who said that prior to the sinking of the Lusitania no merchant ships zig-zagged. Turner had argued that maintaining a steady course for 30 minutes was necessary to take a four point bearing and precisely confirm the ship's position,"

At her cruising speed of 18 kts, she was faster that most of the merchant fleet and way faster than any Uboat

And again:

"Part of the proceedings (of the trail) turned on the question of proper evasive tactics against submarines. It was put to Captain Turner that he had failed to comply with admiralty instructions to travel at high speed, maintain a zig-zag course and keep away from shore. Naval instructions about zig-zag were read to the captain, who confirmed that he had received them, though later added that they did not appear to be as he recollected. This was unsurprising, since the regulations quoted had only been approved on 25 April, after Lusitania's last arrival in New York, and started distribution 13 May, after she sank"

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your unfounded allegation in a public forum that I have personal artifacts from victims of 9/11 in my home takes a hell of a lot of nerve, sir, and I believe an apology is in order.

I didn't say you had anything from the WTC bombing - why can't you read what I write ? - I said that you will have some of the very same items that are on display at the museum in your home, they are just everyday items, nothing is historical about them.

"..and I have no interest in ever seeing them" - not quite a declaration of personal distaste

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant,

Ah, the perils of forum life. I misread your post, and for that I am sorry.

For the record, not that my opinion counts for anything, I find the museum idea of displaying personal items of the victims of 9/11 personally distasteful.

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, not that my opinion counts for anything, I find the museum idea of displaying personal items of the victims of 9/11 personally distasteful.

Everyones opinion counts, it's what you do with it that matters !

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken from Wiki:

What sort of source is that? Who wrote it? What sources did they use? Or none? What was their agenda? On such a controversial and even passionate subject, really not creditable.

"Captain Turner gave evidence in England and now gave a more spirited defence of his actions. He argued that up until the time of the sinking he had no reason to think that zig-zagging in a fast ship would help. Indeed, that he had since commanded another ship which was sunk while zig-zagging. His position was supported by evidence from other Captains, who said that prior to the sinking of the Lusitania no merchant ships zig-zagged. Turner had argued that maintaining a steady course for 30 minutes was necessary to take a four point bearing and precisely confirm the ship's position,"

At her cruising speed of 18 kts, she was faster that most of the merchant fleet and way faster than any Uboat

Again (of course relying on this book, which is very detailed and sourced, Turner was put on trial for, among other alleged errors, not zig-zagging, but when the second set of transcripts surfaced, it was clear that he had been ordered to not zig-zag, and that he was being framed. At this point the trial collapsed, and the judge was so angry that he resigned from the bench. The book maintains that he had been directed to go right over the known position of a U-boat. Some of the statements in the paragraph you cite seem wildly incorrect.

And again:

"Part of the proceedings (of the trail) turned on the question of proper evasive tactics against submarines. It was put to Captain Turner that he had failed to comply with admiralty instructions to travel at high speed, maintain a zig-zag course and keep away from shore. Naval instructions about zig-zag were read to the captain, who confirmed that he had received them, though later added that they did not appear to be as he recollected. This was unsurprising, since the regulations quoted had only been approved on 25 April, after Lusitania's last arrival in New York, and started distribution 13 May, after she sank"

Again (as I remember), the second set of transcripts produced by the over-zealous wireless operator showed, proved, that he had been directed to not zig-zag, by radioed orders, and where to sail; the official transcripts of this radio transmission then having been destroyed by His Magesty's Government. Also, supposedly, a ship of such importance was routinely escorted when nearing Ireland and Britain, this escort was withheld. Of course, in wartime, the supposed misdeeds would not have been reported on or dwelled upon by anyone, including Turner. I cannot corroborate these points, the data sources (if they exist), are cited in the book, much should be in UK and US public records (as used and in part photo-copied by the author and included in the illustrations of the book) and many parts of the author's claims should be easily proven or discredited by someone in the UK. I am rather surprised that no one seems eager to open this interesting can of worms.

Grant

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did an abebooks search on "Colin Simpson" as author, got 1937 hits on his various books, of the first 60, 19 were copies of The Lusitania selling for $1, plus a number more selling for prices from $1.50 to $5. Probably half of the first 60 books authored by him seem to be this book, extrapolating that ratio, there might be about 1000 copies offered on abebooks. So this book is readily available, to say the least.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a 2009 article earlier that appeared in Vogue, of all places, with Mr. Bemis who indicated that while he would be exploring the wreck he would be keeping an eye out for the lost mastepieces by Monet and Degas allegedly on board, but in another more recent article it claimed he is 'prohibited' from collecting personal artifacts, just those artifacts associated with the ship itself. This does not square with the assertion in Vogue that he has harvested articles from the wreck in the past, including pocket watches.

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also answered my own earlier question: the ship's bell is on display at the Imperial War Museum, recovered in 1982. Guess who contracted the company, Oceaneering, to remove the bell? Mr. Bemis, who owned the bell and sold it in public auction (Sotheby's). The buyer donated it to IWM, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re post #59

Taken from source - Beesly, Patrick (1982). Room 40: British Naval Intelligence, 19141918. Long Acre, London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd. ISBN 0-241-108640-0. pages 97. 116 - 117

Patrick Beesly was an intelligence officer during WW2 and the RNVR before that, Author of a few books about Naval intelligence

and your quoting a book (by memory) from a journalist who seems to slanted it towards getting the USA into the war

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I do not understand is why a seasoned and reputable archaeologist would agree to work a site like this.

He would agree to work the site for the same reason an archaeologist would agree to supervise the excavation of a road in a sensitive area. He doesn't agree necessarily with the disturbance of the site, but will audit what goes on and record the finds.

Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant;

I posted # 59 and then ran out on some errands, but I was bothered by a feeling that I had been a little edgy in my post. So I appologize if I have seemed impolite.

Re post #59

Taken from source - Beesly, Patrick (1982). Room 40: British Naval Intelligence, 1914–1918. Long Acre, London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd. ISBN 0-241-108640-0. pages 97. 116 - 117

Sounds like a fine source; the mention of Wikipedia had put me off. I use it for the odd purpose, and I think that most of the information seems accurate. But I am put off by the anonomous nature of the source of the information or misinformation. I recently saw an article on a controvesial topic, and my reading of the non-native English of the unknown author indicated a member of one of the ethnic groups involved in the dispute. And the gentleman (or woman) seems to have nicely cooked the history presented in the article.

Patrick Beesly was an intelligence officer during WW2 and the RNVR before that, Author of a few books about Naval intelligence

and your quoting a book (by memory) from a journalist who seems to slanted it towards getting the USA into the war

I am not a student of the naval war. But I had read the book say 20 years ago, before I started working seriously on WW I, but was very struck with its claims, which I have no easy way to corroborate, and not enough interest to attempt to do so. But I have always been struck by no one ever getting into the assertions, although I have mentioned the book once or twice here before. I haave an enormous amount of WW I stuff jammed between my ears, and know fairly well how the noggin works; if I state that the author said this and that, I would only do so if I felt that I was correctly citing it to a certainty of something like 98%. If I thought I was in 90% terrain, I would put in a qualifier or warning, like: "seemed to", etc. If I felt I was in 70% terrain I would not mention it at all.

In my own work, I rarely ever even use secondary sources like The Lusitania or Room 40. In my current project, in which I am perhaps working 5-6 hours a day, I rarely ever use a secondary source, and in fact about 98% of my current reading and writing sources are not in English. About five years ago I read (in a secondary source, by an American author who does not deserve her large reputaion, I found a wonderful, dramatic quote and description that I would have loved to incorporate in my work, but not being able to find the original to check the translation, I put it aside for five years. I recently found the original quote, in a book on 1914 events by a Walloon professor, and could verify that the translation was reliable. However, studying the context of the alleged event in question, and referring to my other findings related to the supposed event, I realized that my wonderful description was entirely bogus, impossible and a fabrication. I still bitterly regret that I cannot use it.

All of which is a pompous way to say that I feel that I am extremely scrupulous about sources in my own work. Here, however, I have a provocative book, that seems to be well researched and sourced, but outside my range of expertise; I have no idea whether it is serious and ground-breaking, or a big bogus fabrication, or the work of a half-wit. So I am putting it out there to see if anyone with the expertise and access to the source material (95% in the UK, I think) can drill down on this, or already has, or knows of someone who has. The assertions certainly are important.

Grant

Very Best Regards,

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

The German wreck you referred to earlier, is that the Wilhelm Gustloff? Quite a story, that.

Daniel

Daniel;

No, it was not. I don't know a lot about it, but I understand that the Gustloff was a liner attempting to take refugees away from East Prussia back west to central Germany which was torpedoed by a Russian submarine, event having occurred in winter in the Baltic, I think there were few survivors and about 8000 people died. This might be the worse maritime tragedy ever. I recently have been talking to my Wisconsin cousin Elsbeth, about their flight from there; her father, a vice-mayor, worked tirelessly getting the people of the area moving westward, but was so occupied with this that he neglected to get his own family out. Elseth, about 12, and her brother, got out, the Russians put her mother and father in a camp, and her mother starved to death, I don't know how her father died. People were motivated to flee.

I assume you mean the ship with the Russian POWs. I don't know the name, I read the article in Skin Diver Magazine 30-40 years ago, and that tragedy occurred on the Norwegian coast, I believe.

I spent a few minutes researching F. Greg Bemis. The Bemis Company is a leading manufacturer of flexible packaging, and the printing of same, and the company was founded about 1848 by his grand-father. The official company history site says that he ran the company from 1940 to 1960, when he retired. The Irish press link that you provided said that Bemis is 80 years old. To me, that indicates that he ran the company (recent sales, 1.18 billion $$s) from the time he was 9 years old to the time he was 29, when he seems to have left the Mid-West and moved to Mass. and a career as a yatchsman and sailing racer. Maybe he is 90 or 100 and shaves his age a bit. I hope he does not dive any more (I almost drowned myself free-diving off Key Largo a year ago after not having done it for a long while, at 70.) (Leni Reisenfhal {sure I have that wrong), the film-maker, Triumph of the Will, etc., was crippled in a helecopter crash in Africa in her 80's, and after that, in her 90s, the only place she felt physically comfortable was scuba diving, which made her weightless.) There does not seem to be two of them, but I may be wrong. Would F. Greg Bemis want to name his son F. Greg Bemis? Perhaps.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Would F. Greg Bemis want to name his son F. Greg Bemis? Perhaps.

It does give the title of Jnr in Daniels article, So I assumed it was a Son. Until then had only heard of one of em

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leni Riefenstahl, Bob.

If I wrote carefully and checked things I wouldn't be able to write so many excessively long, nutty posts. I did know that I didn't have it right.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say you had anything from the WTC bombing - why can't you read what I write ? - I said that you will have some of the very same items that are on display at the museum in your home, they are just everyday items, nothing is historical about them.

Grant

That is NOT what you said, Grant. You do owe Daniel an apology, not an obfuscation. "you probably have some of them in your home" does not say "some of the very same". I have no idea what you meant to write, but you must surely admit that what you did write is quite indefensible and, apparently, tasteless. Antony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Grant's post as meaning Daniel possessed items similiar to and/or of the same type as those on display, not the actual items themselves. If Daniel and Grant are content to let the initial misunderstanding rest, perhaps we can return to discussion of the Lusitaia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do owe Daniel an apology, not an obfuscation. .... but you must surely admit that what you did write is quite indefensible and, apparently, tasteless. Antony

Funny that, Daniel went back and reread what I had wrote in it's full context and seemed quite happy with what I had said, others seem to have been able to understand what I was saying as well !!

Some people just have to stick in their noses and try to stir thing up don't they ?

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guncotton exploded by seawater? Where on earth did that come from?

Since nitrocellulose requires a violent shockwave, as from a 'proper' detonator, to make it explode, how was this to be achieved?

What was the objective of packing it within an inch of the trigger medium when ships, then as now, occasionally ran aground and created hull ruptures with no belligerent action involved?

How was 350 tons of it packed in without detailed plans, and logistics involving hundreds of workers at multiple levels of skill?

Forgive my bluntness, but it sounds to me like conspiracy theorists' paranoid fantasy.

The coaldust explosion theory for the second blast is about ten thousand times easier to believe.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...