Talk:Robert Ballard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Battleship Bismark

It should be mentioned here that Robert Ballard also discovered the German battleship Bismarck.

[edit] Open Letter to Ballard

An interesting read: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/4792/

[edit] Cite all sources please!

I love Wikipedia, but sometimes it is hard to trust articles because they are not cited correctly. A large portion of this article seems to have been lifted from another website without proper citation. Here’s a link to that site:

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bal0bio-1

Part of this article’s cleanup should include fixing the errors in citation.

[edit] Too Much Credit

Ballard wasn't part of the team that recently discovered the hull had broken into 3, not 2 pieces.

Quoted from the CNN article, "Explorer Robert Ballard found the bulk of the wreck in 1985, at a depth of 13,000 feet and about 380 miles southeast of Newfoundland. Ballard was not impressed with the expedition's find.

"They found a fragment, big deal," Ballard said. "Am I surprised? No. When you go down there, there's stuff all over the place. It hit an iceberg and it sank. Get over it."

I'm removing it unless someone else can prove otherwise

No, to be truthful the hull of the Titanic broke into dozens of pieces. But only two main pieces. This 3 pieces story has the whiff of sensationalism to it. Brian Schlosser42 13:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I look forward to the documentary, so far I haven't found an explanation on why these pieces could not have come off when the ship broke apart. MechBrowman 14:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I am sure that they did berak off during the sinking, but this idea that the ship broke into three big pieces, and not two magor sections (and in only 5 minutes? that is silly, but I've seen that number in two news reports) is wrong on the face of it. the ship broke in between the third and fourth stacks, through the aft 1st class stair and the reciprocating engine room hatch. The bow segment ends at the third funnel casing, and the stern ends at the reciprocating engine room. No more than a 10th of the lenght of the ship is missing there. Brian Schlosser42 02:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC

[edit] Editing

I have done some significant editing to this article, adding wikilinks and rephrasing some poorly written statements. I added one "citation needed" template, but the article is loaded with unsourced statements. I'm unable to research sources and rewrite the article, but hopefully the next editor who comes along will be able to make more fundamental changes. Laura1822 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other?

Presumably this is not the Robert Ballard who wrote lute music in the 16th century? Or the publisher? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.40.144 (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Incorectness

I don't know how it was missed that someone added today that "Three weeks later, depressed by his sons death, Ballard jumped of the empire state builing trajically ending his life. His suicide note only said, "i hope theres oceanography in hell." Ballard was a strong aethiest and resented all religions."

Not only is it incorrect, but it's poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.3.48 (talk • contribs)

We not only noticed it, but we reverted it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Questions for Dr. Ballard

In order for this article to be properly balanced, the significant (however often overlooked) controversy surrounding this particular man's claims as to the extent of his role in the discovery of the Titanic must be touched upon. He has left a a trail of angry people in his wake. The aforementioned Open Letter (the above link to which is apparently dead) from a French oceanographer presents a rather convincing argument against his many statements regarding salvage operations around the vessel. The Titanic International Society called him in to discuss these controversies in 2005, and allegedly received no response from his URI office. TIS wrote these Ten Questions For Robert Ballard following the snub: http://www.revdma2.com/BobQuestions.htm.

Here is a fresh link to the open letter: http://www.titanicfiles.org/Essays_englisch/An%20open%20letter%20to%20Bob%20Ballard.pdf.

[edit] No mentions of his books

Currently reading his autobiography, Explorations, however Ballard has written several other books as well. These should be mentioned, I'd think. --BrokenSphereMsg me 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've actually read that book, and it's very good, though now somewhat dated. It could be a good source for some information, too. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic cover-up allegations

Apparently, Ballard has come out saying that his search for the Titanic was a cover-up for him searching for the wrecks of the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion. Anyone else hear about this? --Kevin W. 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not quite. Ballard got funding for Argo and the expedition from the US Navy, and you know how the old saying goes, that you have to pay to say. Thus Ballard was obligated to search for the Thresher and the Scorpion and image them first. After that, he was free to search for Titanic. For that part of the expedition, the Frenchmen on board were not permitted in the control van, and this Navy work was not reported in Ballard's Titanic books, though it did appear in later books. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)