http://hunleyfinder.wordpress.com/article/the-discovery-of-the-hunley-by-dr-e-lee-9a3pk7ykcgda-2/

Remember: the world is watching……

Alex Fallon
4/8/2013

Rather than publicly debating these points in a reply or a blog, which I feel may not be entirely professional, I would like to humbly engage in a private dialogue first. Make no mistake, my aim is to correct the egregious errors presented in the your article, with the aim of having you publicly correct what you wrote. But I wish to do this in a happy spirit of comraderie, as fellow academics and writers, for the general enlightenment of yourself and your readers. Very simply put, Dr. Spence did indeed first find the Hunley in 1970, and I have compiled overwhelming evidence to prove it. If you are willing, I would like to provide all documentation for your own personal gratification, as well as provide a point-by-point rebuttal to your responses. I believe Dr. Spence himself must be a gentleman of such high standards and decency, that he probably doesn’t even have the time to dignify misrepresentations and poorly researched articles with a response. But I, on the other hand, who am involved in a project which puts a spotlight on this debate, am very interested to see if this method might indeed produce in you a true conversion, rather than in more public and professionally embarrassing way. Be sure that my intent to expose all wrongdoings in this case and to expedite a reckoning as a result. So sure am I of my claims, that I would also expose myself publicly to the same high level of scrutiny. Therefore, if you would like to debate this on your website, I woud relish the opportunity. Please provide a more appropriate forum, if not.

The legal matter of what was done against Dr. Spence is separate, and will be exposed in due time. What I would like to provoke is an organic response by you and all other authors on this subject, for the high and noble purpose of nipping historical revisionism in the bud, at the source. I am well underway in entreating similar discourse with a many writers, historians, and archaeologists, so please don’t feel that I have singled you out, or that there is any malintent in what I write. This is one of the most important topics in Nautical Archaeology today, and as such I am very passionate in its debate. As I have written to others, please help to set the record straight, and be very mindful of which side you may choose, because history will record the ultimate vindication of Dr. Spence. Please consider this email as official notice, and please indicate either your willingness or unwillingness to participate in this dialogue in a follow-up email.

W. Alexander Fallon
walexanderfallon@gmail.com
Isle of Palms, SC
March 25, 2013

http://shipwrecks.com/2013/03/just-laughing-comments-on-cussler/

Historical revisionism is a nasty enterprise, and all association with it should be avoided like the plague. As you see, the above observations are spot-on and cutting edge topics! – which should then dictate a public and well publicized correction in your article and all future treatment of the subject. As one of the most influential stewards and protectors of the world’s nautical archaeological treasure, you of all people should champion this reform. Moreover, I hope this dialogue would prompt definitive conversion, much as how Saul became Paul – persecutor-cum-proselytizer style. Do professionals, now, in 2013, only make public apologies for making mistakes at the point of a gun? Is there some legal conflict in admitting the truth in this matter? If so, please point it out. The internet is, as print and radio have been for so long, a powerful tool which may be utilized for both good and evil. Which side are you on? Please allow this blog to serve as official notice. Please feel free to contest any part of this, and/or ask for complete documentation to back up my assertions. As an archaeologist and a historian, and a hero to so many, such injustice should piss you off too!

W. Alexander Fallon
March 23, 2013

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Underwater archaeologist E. Lee Spence, M.H.D., has asked me to comment on his longstanding claim to have found the wreck of the submarine H.L. Hunley prior to 1995. I assume he has asked me to do this because I was the originator and official director of the project, which has been widely credited with the discovery of the Hunley. I appreciate being asked for comments, because it gives me a chance to point out some facts, offer my opinions, and to ponder some important issues.
First, let’s get straight on the facts. The Hunley Search Project was neither a NUMA project nor a Clive Cussler project. NUMA was simply one of several organizations, which I, as an underwater archaeologist working under the auspices of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology & Anthropology at the University of South Carolina, had invited to participate in a project that I had originally put together with the support of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Mr. Cussler was only one of a large number of individuals who participated in the project. Mr. Cussler’s biggest contribution was his name recognition value as a best-selling author who writes about a fictional Government agent. His name was a draw card, which is still being used to help sell the Hunley. Furthermore, there were many other people and organizations who supported and otherwise contributed to the project. The most valuable support for the project came from the aforementioned United Daughters of the Confederacy and from members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I am not involved in the current work, but it is my understanding that virtually all of the financial support for the current work is coming from the taxpayers of South Carolina, who have followed the lead of those same Sons and Daughters.
Although, even by NUMA’s official press release and by Mr. Cussler’s own statements to the press in May of 1995, I was the director of the Hunley Search Project, and could theoretically claim all credit for the discovery, but that would not be ethical or fair. It would be especially unfair to Dr. Spence. I say that because, after a review of the archaeological evidence published in the federal government’s H.L. Hunley Site Assessment (1998), and of various maps, notes, and other information related to me by Dr. Spence, I am convinced that Dr. Spence found and correctly identified the wreck prior to 1995.
I am not saying that our project was not part of the discovery, it most certainly was. Part of our objective for 1995 was to visit and check out Dr. Spence’s site. But, like Dr. Spence, we were only a part of the discovery. In a very real sense the discovery of the Hunley has already spanned thirty years and is still going on. Every day the archaeologists, forensic experts, archivists and others discover more about the Hunley.
What my project apparently did in 1995 was to verify that what Dr. Spence had found was indeed the Hunley. That was a discovery of major importance and it was something Dr. Spence had actively pressed the government to do for years. It was Dr. Spence’s persistence in pursuing and publishing his claim that has allowed all of us to participate in and be part of the ongoing discovery of the Hunley.
Dr. Spence should be credited with being the first to find the Hunley, not the NUMA divers, and certainly not Clive Cussler.
The Hunley Commission’s conclusion against Dr. Spence was simply not supported by the scientific evidence. The evidence actually supports Dr. Spence’s contention that the wreck was partially exposed when he found it in 1970. There is so much evidence in support of Dr. Spence’s claims that one might even wonder whether Mr. Cussler’s published threat to give $100,000 to any political opponent of Hunley Commission Chairman, Senator Glenn F. McConnell, was a factor in the Commission’s 1997 decision in favor of Mr. Cussler.
Signed,
Mark M. Newell Ph.D.

This statement is a matter of public record, and, yes, I am appealing to scholarship and research. PS–Interestingly, I believe a strong case can be made that Cussler modeled his famed Dark Pitt character, at least in part, after Dr. Spence, much in the same way Margaret Mitchell modeled her character, Rhett Butler, after real-life Charlestonian, George Alfred Trenholm. Of course it was Dr. Spence who discovered that too.

W. Alexander Fallon
Isle of Palms, SC
March 21, 2013

Dear Alexander:

Thank you for your comments. I want to commend you for your appeal to scholarship and research, and believe me, I understand your feelings as a native South Carolinian and perhaps as a son of the South, as the great-great-grandson of a veteran of the 3rd Mississippi who followed and dogged Sherman’s march to the sea to the very end of the war and as a modern American who honors the memory of all who fought in that war and the great nation we live in today that resulted from that conflict.

I have no personal feelings or loyalties in the matter of when and by whom the wreck of H.L. Hunley was discovered. As a scientist, I report the facts based on a review of the evidence. The detailed archaeological work done by the National Park Service, the US Navy and the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology and subsequent work by the Lasch Conservation Laboratory firmly document through geomorphological, stratigraphic and corrosion evidence that H.L. Hunley became completely buried in the bottom within a few decades of its sinking, and was not exposed until the 1995 test excavation by Ralph Wilbanks and Wes Hall uncovered portions of the submarine that verified that the magnetic anomaly they had targeted was Hunley.

I’m well aware of the ongoing argument being made by Mr. Spence. He has not proven his case. The scientific data obtained from the submarine site and the craft itself indicates it was not visible in 1970.

My ongoing interest in Hunley remains that of all who care about thesubmarine, which is the continuing work to learn from it, to learn more about its crew, to unlock more of its secrets like the just released information about the spar and spar torpedo, and to ensure its preservation and ongoing access to the public.

Thank you for being such an inspiration and example to so many of us out there like me – a young archaeologist just cutting their teeth on the meaty subjects you have gnawed on for decades. I have followed your work for many years, which I greatly respect and admire. After reading the Archaeology Magazine Article, USS Monitor and HL Hunley, from March 11th, 2013, I wanted to point out a correction and a possible ethical point of contention. When referring to the rediscovery of the Hunley, you say that “Decades of searches culminated in its rediscovery in 1995.” Yet a simple and proper review of the facts clearly that Dr. E Lee Spence found the Hunley and officially reported it in 1970, despite Clive Cussler’s rather offensive and historically revisionist claims. I grew up in Charleston, SC and my Sullivan’s Island Elementary class had a field trip to the Charleston Museum (“America’s First Museum”) when the HL Hunley replica was first erected out front. I was an undergraduate archaeology student at the College of Charleston, where this subject was discussed and debated in class. This is, was, and will continue to be one of the most important (and just plain fun) underwater archaeological subjects of conversation for all Americans, but especially to South Carolinians, which is why my tone may be considered a bit “ornery.” I have personally reviewed the documentation regarding this debate and can testify that Dr. Spence did, in fact, find it 25 years before Cussler says his group did. Bravo to Cussler for the wonderful notoriety his work brought to the historically invaluable Confederate submarine, but I feel it is a grave injustice and an ethical blunder not to give credit where it is properly due, especially as historians are so gravely concerned with truth and authenticity. As you have just included the HL Hunley in a list of “History’s Greatest Wrecks,” I believe there should be a spotlight on this point. As for your own apparent personal relationship and association with Clive Cussler, it draws a certain unethical slant to the controversy, which is, I believe, not suited to a scholar of your stature. Is this not a professional conflict of interest to knowingly propogate a historical falsehood of this magnitude? What can Cussler and those who support his claims possibly gain by doing so? If Spence did not find it first, then why was it he who graciously and patriotically donated his rights to it over to the state of South Carolina? What sinister forces would culminate to perpetuate this fraud. Dr. Spence deserves applause and an apology, and I ask you to please review your official stance on this matter. There is an upcoming television documentary which highlights and investigates this point, and I believe history shall not be kind to the liars. Please help to set the record straight.

Very Respectfully Yours,

W. Alexander Fallon
March 19, 2013

Wonderful stuff, just great!