This is not a question about Lee Spence’s claims to have discovered it first.
This could just be a definition of semantics, but from what (little) I understand of the discovery:
a) Clive Cussler was one of several people/groups financing the expedition, and
b) Cussler was not aboard the ship when it was found.
Those points being the case (and I don’t know for a fact that they are), is it really accurate to say that he discovered it?
Ballard was most definitely on-hand when he discovered the Titanic, Bismarck, et. al. Can Cussler make that same claim?
If his participation was limited to money, even if he financed the search 100%, then no, he can’t claim to have discovered it, IMHO.
Actually…Lee Spence discovered the Hunley.
In 1970.
Interesting call–“who should get credit?” The Navy sez Clive “and his team” do.
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-3.htm
NUMA says that the Navy says that it was Clive, although they do mention “the divers”.
http://www.numa.net/hunley/historic.htm
However, it’s worthwhile to point out that NUMA belongs to Clive Cussler.
http://www.numa.net/CliveCussler/index.htm
Clive himself says that it was him “and his NUMA crew”. And yes, evidently he was there when the sub was raised.
http://www.numa.net/press/hunley/aug1300.htm
CNN says that Clive’s “crew” discovered it, and confirms that he was there when it was raised (although they seem not to have noticed the backstroke).
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/08/08/hunley.01/index.html
But here’s who actually swam around down there in the murk and found the thing.
http://www.diveweb.com/commdive/features/novdec2000.01.htm
http://www.cla.sc.edu/sciaa/nov17.html
So, you tell me–who “discovered” it?
Lee Spence’s side of the story…it is very compelling.
http://www.hunleyarchives.org/
oops…
Uhhh…
well…
My browser dropped that part! That’s the ticket!