Warbird Information Exchange

Maybe I didn't state it correctly , I mean't one remaining relative (As I'm quite sure there are several relatives of members of the crew still alive) Not a remaining crew member. And that was a point I was making simply for the emotional aspect of the expedition, which as you stated and I concur, is but one reason of several, but for the sensitivity of the expedition in the public view (as apparent in this thread) I would assume an important reason.



Much more important hmmm!, of equal importance as it pertains to this particular expedition to recover the bell, perhaps. But that is a debate that could wander in all directions of which is moot to this conversation. I would suggest both to be of equal value to each other in their own area of expertise.



Agreed as well even though there seems little knowledge to be gained by a bell. But this is not just 'a' bell, it is 'the' bell from HMS Hood and I would gather there is more to this expedition than just retrieving the bell. Such as another survey of the wreckage site? ... wonder if some sort of plaque will be placed at the site.



... how about 'Da Hood' no disrespect to the memory of HMS Hood

BTW were there any airplanes on the Hood so we could talk about them and bring a 'warbird' theme to this conversation? No? ... don't bother I already know the answer.

+++1

Absolutely agree Dave - the often applauded recovery of aircraft wrecks, or even parts from them, with unrecovered pilot/crew remains or a fatality associated, (ie Russian Hurricane with the pilot in situ) - for restoration (and often commercial profit) is happily discussed and admired in this forum.

Which makes this debate about the ethics of the recovery of a Ships Bell from a Wargrave Shipwreck - for display as a memorial to the lost crew rather hypocritical.

Yes I know the ship wrecks are more formally declared a "Wargrave", and aircraft wrecks are seldom if ever declared, but that doesnt change the ethics involved does it?

If a combat wreck - where someone died and remains were left un-recovered - is a place of religious/spiritual or National respect, then how does it really vary from a shipwreck to an aircraft wreck, just because one is mentioned somewhere on a bit of paper?

And if a Ship Wreck is formally declared to a War Grave by a Nation out of respect of the fallen, to ensure it's not scavenged by scrap dealers or souvenir hunters, surely that same Nation can determine and approve recovery of items for memorial purposes, or even in the case of wartime aircraft wrecks, the recovery of remains for formal burial elsewhere.

The whole thing is about "respect for the dead" and honouring and marking their death and sacrifice- and placing the ships bell on public display in an appropriate, publicly accessible, memorial to the crew seems reasonable and respectful to me. (and of course its not my decision to make).

To me, the recovery of the ships Bell is a symbolic recovery of the ships crew for creation of a land based, public memorial, not recovery of a museum piece simply to preserve and exhibit an example of a WW2 ship's brass bell.

I therefore dont in anyway consider its either "grave robbing" or "archeology",

for those who think it is - start such a thread on the Key Publishing website and see what the countrymen of the British crew of the Hood think about it?

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Regarding 'relatives' rather than survivors, I take your correction; however there's a clear difference between those two, and a sliding scale for 'relatives'. I would be daft to claim any requirements over my great uncle's story with HMAS Perth.

You might be wise to duck the question - maybe I'm not. So.

Money is a tool, not an end, though some sadly see it that way, and the fetishistion of it and those with it is a sad modern habit, here on WIX and wider.

The finding of the Hood was the tough task, and of some historic interest as there were some questions over how it exactly met it's end in detail. That was carried out by David Mearns' team funded and driven by Channel 4, a British TV channel. Mearns has been - rightly - given the Order of Australia for the finding of HMAS Sydney and SMS Kormoran, a challenge previously thought impossible, as well as the wreck of the hospital ship Centuar.

The Sydney and Kormoran battle and saga has long been the home of various conspiracy theories and legitimate questions, all of which are laid and resolved by Mearns' planning and success in finding the wrecks.

Other than that, he was responsible for finding shipwrecks that resulted in a fraudulent murdering ship owner being convicted and the design of bulk carriers being changed due to previously unrecognised design flaws. Anyone who has achieved that, has made remarkable differences for safety and historical knowledge beyond most people's reach.

He's not a rich man, but he was able to get the funding to undertake some of these tasks, and succeed where other charged him to do so. I don't know how good Mr Allen would be at fundraising and finding things without his money behind him.

So if we are to admire the money men in the process, it should be Channel 4 and the others for that expedition.

Because the recovery of the bell is an 'easy', if expensive win, with maximum publicity guaranteed as the location is now known. If he was paying for a long-shot search, that would be a lot more laudable, and with a risk of no result.

Paul Allen may be a laudable and admirable man for other reasons, including philanthropy. But in this case, it's not such a big deal. Without Mearns' previous work the point wouldn't even arise.

We like Allen here because of his aircraft collection - I certainly like it, and appreciate it's now on public show. However it is also oversold (on the 'originality' claims, though often valid, there's some pretty big compromises glossed over) and the historical significance of the collection is technically interesting to us (original, brilliantly restored examples of rare and not rare fighters, for the most part) but they're not actually as historically important as they are cool to collect, if you are brutally honest about them.

Fundamentally I'm more interested in history than money (as my car demonstrates! ) Others are perfectly entitled to reverse those processes, and using money to explore history is a good thing, so I'm not entirely 'down' on Mr Allen's contribution. I just don't get all awestruck.

It can be seen like the remnants of the 'true cross' and the bones of saints displayed in mediaeval cathedrals. I'm not a religious person, but it's generally a good idea to watch out for the worship of idols and relics.

Having seen the bell from my relative's sunken ship, I have a direct, personal parallel. Is it a worthy reminder? Yes. It is necessary? For me, no. For others perhaps yes.

Uh, that's what my quote above said. But it's a 'nice to add', not a find and test. It's not necessary.

No 'airplanes' ever on HMS Hood, but aircraft, crates or aeroplanes, yes. (Yeah, yeah, who cares...) Glad you checked, wish that was more of a habit here! That said, HMS Hood was unusual in not having a spotter aircraft on a catapult, as mosr RN battleships and cruisers had either a Fairey Fox or a Supermarine Walrus and occasionally a float-equipped Fairey Swordfish. One of the questions Mearns wasn't able to answer was why HMAS Sydney did not use her Walrus appropriately when encountering the suspect merchant ship. However he did find some remnants of the Walrus, and the Sydney's catapult.

Interesting thread!

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

It is interesting, in a historical context that the approach to 'honouring the dead' is actually one set of variations that have changed and mutated throughout history. (One of the most remote to our sensibilities is eating parts of your enemy after battle to obtain their valour and honour.) Perhaps the most pertinent is the change in the British Empire and Commonwealth attitude from only recognising the bodies of officers as important, and the very recent and American culture-driven 'bringing the boys back home' for those in the UK which is a function of smaller numbers of dead and improved international logistics.

Memorials are indeed symbolic and thought provoking; what hasn't been said here, so far, but is evident is that it often tells you more about those raising the memorial than those memorialised.

Doing it for the dead is also safer, and they can't argue with the memorialising 'messages' - as the living survivors do remarkably often. Once time has passed some memorials seem pretty crass.

(Please note these are all just general observations - rather than a specific critique.)

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

James you gotta know I'd love to reply and/or counter point you on several of your statements, problem is, I keep falling asleep half way through reading your posts

By the time I actually finished your last post I had to shave again.

Haha OK I'll stop the attempt at humor.

Ever think of pursuing journalism? Lol ....

Just ... I believe the term is .... Funnin ya, .... I read that somewhere

It's all them big words, innit.

Don't worry, it's not in the exam.

As another poster once said, it's JDK's "big bucket of words".

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Coming from a fairly staunch Navy family and having spent all my life around the water, the bell does indeed carry a significance beyond the simple and obvious physical connection to the lost ship. The bell served (and will serve) as the "voice" of the ship; it would be rung regularly when the ship was in service. To have the bell recovered is, in a small but emotionally significant way, to bring that ship back to "life" (quotes intentional), and thus create a connection both physical and symbolic between the men who sailed and fought and died in her, and the generations to come. For those who do not have the same emotional connections with the sea and those who sail on it, I understand this becomes more of an academic question... but be assured that when that bell is brought ashore, cleaned, mounted, and unveiled, the emotional impact of the moment will be immense.

For comparison, I offer the following video; in November 1975, the "Edmund Fitzgerald" was lost with all 29 crew in a massive storm still remembered to this day for it's ferocity. 20 years later, the bell of the ship was recovered and restored, and each November 10, is rung 29 times in a solemn ceremony attended by hundreds. To the uninformed observer, it's merely a handsomely shaped chunk of brass. To the families of the lost seamen, it is a connection and a way to commemorate their lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjvmWLy8NxU

Lynn

Very good post, Lynn.

Big bucket of something ... lol

Very well said Lynn .... +++1 .... Interestingly I grew up just a few miles from where the Fitzgerald sank and remember quite well that tragedy. My high school chemistry teacher was Tom Farnquist. He helped find the Fitzgerald and later suffered the bends on another great lakes dive. Great example. Thanks

Good thread, well mostly good thread

No I would not loose my money.

One of the Titanic expeditions by Charles Pellegrino did indeed recover (accidentally) a human finger bone. It was quickly returned to the wreckage. Other reports from this same individual contain references to other bones located on the ship. If they could be found on the Titanic, they can still be found on the Hood. Maybe there isn't a lot of remains but they are still there.

Maybe they didn't have many watertight compartments on the Hood, I don't know much about the ship's construction. But I would be very surprised to find that the ship was built without any. Every other ship of that time had some. However, there is most certainly air pockets in certain places. There probably isn't a way to easily determine exactly where but just the physics of construction and the sinking would make their existance a real probability. There is video footage of this being the case on the Titanic.

Place your bets!!! ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Pellegrino

Seriously, whats the latest news. haven't been following along.

Nothing is going to change the fact that Charles Pellegrino found remains on the Titanic, however small they may have been, and returned them. It was witnessed by others. The fact that the man might be a little bit off in his other interests has nothing to do with this. The simple truth is that remains could be found on the Hood, just as they were on the Titanic.

This threads been beaten to a pulp. And we haven't even heard the last from JDK yet.

I started a reply, but given that bombadier29 has the answers without any knowledge of HMS Hood, it's self-evidently a waste of time. Onto more worthwhile activities.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Can you prove there are absolutely no human remains on the Hood? No you can't. Can you prove there are no trapped pockets of air in the Hood that might have remained all this time? No you can't. Can you prove there was not a single watertight compartment built into the Hood, regardless of its existance today? No you can't.