Posted by Craig on September 19, 19103 at 20:16:56:
In Reply to: Re: superior city- No arguments here! posted by Ric who? on September 19, 19103 at 15:38:20:
: Hi Craig-
: I agree with you entirely. Our dive to the Fitz found the first missing crewman.. and I guess I've been over sensitive about the whole 'gravesite' thing. I have the utmost respect for those lost to the waves.. but I also feel their story needs to be told. It's how we handle the presentation of that topic (and footage.. noting that Michigan legislators tried to ban my video on the Fitzgerald). There will always be bad filmmakers- we just shouldn't all be lumped into the 'vulture' category.
: We absolutely shouldn't limit shipwreck diving (and videography) to those who are 'scientists' or 'historians' who somehow carry an all-access pass to these historical artifacts.
: Just my 2 cents! (total profit from my shipwreck videos).
: Ric
:
: : Just about every wreck we dive these days are "gravesites" seems to me the hypocracy has been well established. Why is the fitz any different from others? Just recently, I was diving a wreck that also lost all hands, and was signifigantly older, yet my diving there is encouraged rather then strictly denied. What is the differance? If it is because the wreck, excuse me, grave, is rather new-then I must bring up the point that "back in the day" they would dive the wrecks as soon as they could find them to salvage the cargo!
: : Its just that hypocracies annoy me...
: : Craig
Seems to me that they should restrict diving on every wreck that took lives with it. OR allow diving on all wrecks that took lives with them. But like you first noted "hypocritical" Just out of curiosity, what other wrecks are off limits for such arbitrary reasons? And while I am on the subject, I have to reccomend a great book on this type of thing, USS Monitor, an ironclad legacy, By Gary Gentile. An autobiographic type book about his NINE YEAR battle with NOAA just to dive!
Craig