Paul Allen at HMS Hood Wreck ...

[Russ Matthews]

Live streaming video from the ROV available here ...

http://www.livestream.com/apaulgallenproject

Currently navigating past the propellors and rudder as I type this (1:12pm PDT Friday, August 24 2012)

[Adam Kline]

Howard Carter emptying out King Tut's tomb started out as archeology, it sure didn't end that way.

You should see how many mummies the British have in their museums. Egypt wants them back too.

This doesn't seem ethical to me. Titanic pieces were or still are up for sale as long as they stay complete as a collection. Guess what will happen.

[Mark Allen M]

This doesn't seem ethical to me

What doesn't seem ethical? The mummies, the Titanic pieces or the Hood bell.

[TROJANII]

Apparently they had an "oops!" moment. ROV struck the super structure and and the feed is off line now.

[SaxMan]

From what I've read, the bell is considered by some to be the "soul" of the ship. I know they recovered the bell from the Edmund Fitzgerald as a memorial to the 29 men that went down with her. I think recovering the Hood's bell is an outstanding idea...better than just letting nature have its way with it.

[JägerMarty]

Sounds a lot like grave robbing to me.

I have a serious question. At what point does grave robbing become archeology?

I think the only people allowed to criticise this work are relatives of those who died on the Hood, and unless you are one of them ..........
As others have said, it's readily accessable and the rest of the wreck won't be disturbed, so why not get a tangible relic for a public memorial?

[bombadier29]

Sounds a lot like grave robbing to me.

I have a serious question. At what point does grave robbing become archeology?

I think the only people allowed to criticise this work are relatives of those who died on the Hood, and unless you are one of them ..........
As others have said, it's readily accessable and the rest of the wreck won't be disturbed, so why not get a tangible relic for a public memorial?

I'm not a relative of anybody on the HMS Hood and I doubt you are either. That being said, I've got every right to criticise this "work". It's grave robbing plain and simple. Just because its being done by a rich guy that we all love because of his airplane collection doesn't make it less so! That is the last resting place of over 1,000 men and they are taking, what somebody else mentioned, the soul of their tomb. Much like the titanic I figure it won't be long until parts of the Hood start appearing on Ebay and at high priced auctions. Now that one thing has been removed, the precedent is there. Next it will be the steering wheel for another museum and then a screw for another and on and on.

[Mark Allen M]

Give it a rest, your tired, your old, your boring and your a troll who has a serious personality problem. All your doing is looking for fights and causing trouble. You never have anything nice to say about anyone or anything and your self proclaimed "I'm not here to make friends" is readily apparent. You have never offered anything that has been of interest and all you do is claim you know more than anyone else here. Your just a pain in the *ss and I for one am so tired of your BS. And I'm sure most others here are tired of you as well.

It's clowns like you who ruin it for the good people here that want to contribute and learn. And yes screwball I have been banned before but have been given a second chance to be a good member. So shut up about that as well. Go take your sh*tty remarks and bad attitude elsewhere.

You have no right to criticise anyone or anything, it's no more grave robbing than you are a expert on the CAF's Corsair. Piss off Troll!!!

[TROJANII]

Wouldn't the question be better phrased "At what point does archeology become grave robbing?"? Which I don't think applies in this instance.

[bombadier29]

Give it a rest, your tired, your old, your boring and your a troll who has a serious personality problem. All your doing is looking for fights and causing trouble. You never have anything nice to say about anyone or anything and your self proclaimed "I'm not here to make friends" is readily apparent. You have never offered anything that has been of interest and all you do is claim you know more than anyone else here. Your just a pain in the *ss and I for one am so tired of your BS. And I'm sure most others here are tired of you as well.

It's clowns like you who ruin it for the good people here that want to contribute and learn. And yes screwball I have been banned before but have been given a second chance to be a good member. So shut up about that as well. Go take your sh*tty remarks and bad attitude elsewhere.

You have no right to criticise anyone or anything, it's no more grave robbing than you are a expert on the CAF's Corsair. Piss off Troll!!!

And you say I have a personality problem? As far as I remember I have never claimed anything like knowing more than anybody about anything. Except for the one instance of the Corsair. CAPFlyer was wrong about the Corsair and previous damage and I pointed out that I know more about it than he does. Its not a slap at him, its the plain and simple truth. I had a long involvement with that airplane a long time ago and I know it very well. Should you be so inclined to do so, go out to Georgia and look at the plane yourself.

Wouldn't the question be better phrased "At what point does archeology become grave robbing?"? Which I don't think applies in this instance.

You are right, it would have been better phrased that way. It just seems that 100 years from now anybody could go into a grave yard and start digging up graves and call it archeology. It happens all the time now. I just wonder if there is a time frame when it all of a sudden becomes "ethical" or acceptable to do that. Whats the difference in digging up somebody tomorrow after their funeral, vs waiting 50 years? At what point do is become academic?

[JDK]

It just seems that 100 years from now anybody could go into a grave yard and start digging up graves and call it archeology. It happens all the time now. I just wonder if there is a time frame when it all of a sudden becomes "ethical" or acceptable to do that. Whats the difference in digging up somebody tomorrow after their funeral, vs waiting 50 years? At what point do is become academic?

When it's appropriately authorised and undertaken either by professional archaeologists or under archelogical supervision. Also archeology is, in principle undertaken for knowledge, not for profit.

This answer was provided earlier, and can be found within five minutes searching on the internet. You may not like it, that's yours to deal with. HM Government has no issue in this case, and has authorised the recovery of the bell. They are the authority for the remains of the salors in this case. (And let's be clear, there's no bodies there any more - we are organic and they are gone.)

This is technically neither archaeology (there's nothing to be learned that we don't already know from David Mearns' discovery and 'no touch' finding of HMS Hood) and not 'grave robbing' as it is neither undertaken for profit nor without authority.

The Mearns expedition had significant historical merit.

Personally I think it's unnecessary; HMS Hood isn't forgotten nor likely to be better remembered by seeing the bell on show. Certainly there would be no justification for HM government to spend a single copper on this. If some rich chap wishes to, and does it under the right strictures, fine.

Unlike most here, I had a relative who served on HMAS Perth, lost with USS Houston in the battle of Sunda Strait. Perth's bell was recovered and is on show at the Australian War Memorial. (Notably it was also privately recovered and donated to the AWM.) It is, IMHO, a nice to have, but makes nothing different. I also don't think the personal connection is of great import, and certainly gives me no authority to over-ride the decisions of those qualified to make recovery decisions - though those are usually undertaken in consultation with families.


http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/REL/07771/

Regards,

[Mark Allen M]

Fully Agree on your post above ...

Personally I think it's unnecessary; HMS Hood isn't forgotten nor likely to be better remembered by seeing the bell on show.

I concur as well, but if there is just one remaining relative of one HMS Hood sailor still alive and that one remaining relative's wish was to have the Hood's bell raised and properly displayed in a public museum and one very wealthy person stepped up to assist in the realization of that wish. I'm all for it as long as it is done appropriately and legally, which seems to be the case here.

[DaveM2]

Isn't the USS Arizona bell on display in that state?

oh- and what the heck has any of this got to do with warbirds anyway?

Hmmmm - well to bring some aviation content- how many data plate restorations are flying today, where said data plate came from a wreck where the pilot was killed? Is the recreation of the aircraft using that identity the result of 'grave robbing' or does it honour the pilot or crew that made the ultimate sacrifice?

Dave

[bombadier29]

(And let's be clear, there's no bodies there any more - we are organic and they are gone.)

This is technically neither archaeology (there's nothing to be learned that we don't already know from David Mearns' discovery and 'no touch' finding of HMS Hood) and not 'grave robbing' as it is neither undertaken for profit nor without authority.

As for the presence of remains on the HMS Hood, I'd bet a sizable chunk of cash that there are still some physical remains that could be found. Sailors that were trapped in sealed compartments will remain a lot longer. Even when the compartment finally does rust through, which I'm sure they all have by now, they will still be there much longer than those not trapped for all those years. I doubt there are a lot of remains as I'm sure the vast majority has long since returned to the earth. But sometimes the human body lasts longer than people expect. As far as I know, the interior hasn't been inspected to verify that. And I hope it never is.

Isn't the USS Arizona bell on display in that state?
Hmmmm - well to bring some aviation content- how many data plate restorations are flying today, where said data plate came from a wreck where the pilot was killed? Is the recreation of the aircraft using that identity the result of 'grave robbing' or does it honour the pilot or crew that made the ultimate sacrifice?

Dave

You are right Dave, I believe the USS Arizona bell is on display somewhere. Quite a bit of the ship is on display in various places. The difference I see in that case is most of that, maybe all of it, came from when the superstructure was cut away to bring the wreckage to the current level. Some of the hatches were salvaged when they attempted to salvage the ship over a period of another year or so. If they were down there now trying to recover items then I wouldn't think it would be so acceptable. Maybe if the HMS Hood had been salvaged, or at least attempted, at the time around the sinking then it wouldn't seem so wrong.

As for the warbird data plates. Is the body still in the wreckage when it is recovered? I'd have a problem with that. If the remains were removed in the past then I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

To me, it revolves around the departed's current resting place vs where they died. Maybe a small difference to some but I see it as a large one.

[JDK]

(And let's be clear, there's no bodies there any more - we are organic and they are gone.)

As for the presence of remains on the HMS Hood, I'd bet a sizable chunk of cash that there are still some physical remains that could be found.

You would lose your money. I don't propose to go into the details of why not here, a bit of reading on the specific case and general of warships refound at that depth will show that the chances are nil. The idea of intact compartments is naive, due to the form of destruction of HMS Hood, the fact that it was not a submarine and thus not watertight, and the incredible pressures on any 'cell' that might have some integrity on the way down. The organic recycling process is another whole area. I recommend either Mearns' books on Hood or HMAS Sydney.

The point is moot, it is a war grave, whether there were remains there now or not, and it will remain a war grave.

Hmmmm - well to bring some aviation content-

The finding of both HMS Ark Royal and the the German carrier Graf Zeppelin answered a significant number of questions about their ends, in one case the actual viability of having saved the ship (and the captain's competence and record) the second laying a number of myths about the form of its end (including Soviet cold-war disinformation).

If they were down there now trying to recover items then I wouldn't think it would be so acceptable. Maybe if the HMS Hood had been salvaged, or at least attempted, at the time around the sinking then it wouldn't seem so wrong.

There are emotional rather than analytic arguments and are, essentially irrelevant, except as a driver to lawmaking. What matters is that the laws applicable are followed, and that the laws that are made are sensible. The issues with other ships such as the Titanic relic industry is gaps in the law and illegal activities. If you have significant concerns, work to ensure that the laws cover that, or accept your view is not enforceable. Remember these laws were made, not handed down without consideration.

Of course if your war grave is around a lot of rather-needed gold, exceptions can be made - by government, of course. See HMS Edinburgh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Edinbu ... go_of_gold

Fully Agree on your post above ...

Personally I think it's unnecessary; HMS Hood isn't forgotten nor likely to be better remembered by seeing the bell on show.

I concur as well, but if there is just one remaining relative of one HMS Hood sailor still alive and that one remaining relative's wish was to have the Hood's bell raised and properly displayed in a public museum and one very wealthy person stepped up to assist in the realization of that wish. I'm all for it as long as it is done appropriately and legally, which seems to be the case here.

The last survivor, Ted Briggs was aboard the last Mearns expedition, and has since died.

I think the fact it's here, so far into the discussion, that the fact is raised says a lot about the need to pontificate in the absence of actual knowledge in much of the thread. I also note it's the current expedition is not just about the bell for emotional and social reasons, but also about knowledge -

What is important is the expedition is led by Mearns - who is much more important than Paul Allen here. Mearns is a man who has achieved much, and ethically in this field (see his biography) and: "The expedition will also take the opportunity to re-film the wreck and survey her using techniques unavailable in 2001. As before, with the exception of the retrieval of the Ship's Bell a strict look-but-don't-touch policy will be adhered to."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood_% ... p.27s_bell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mearns

For those after a quick summary, of the state of play, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood_%2851%29#Wreck

By the way, it is correct to refer to HMS Hood, or 'the Hood' but not 'the HMS Hood'. It's a senior service thing.

Regards,