| Author |
Message |
    
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 19
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 9:49 pm: | 
|
quote:The important thing about Pitman's record is that his distances, added to Lowe's 126 miles, equal the length of the great circle course to the "corner", plus about 57 miles from Daunt Rock to Fastnet Rock. Titanic was evidently well navigated, as was expected of the big liners.
3rd/Officer Pitman:
15183. Ten miles further south. Was any record made of that at the time? - No, and I thought that
the course should have been altered at 5 p.m..
15184. Why did you think so? - Judging from the distance run from noon.
Calculated 5hrs @ 22.1 kts = 110.5 miles
5th/Officer Lowe:
Mr. LOWE. I worked the course from noon until what we call the "corner"; that is, 42 north, 47
west. I really forget the course now. It is 60ºº 33 1/2' west - that is as near as I can remember -and 162 miles to the corner.
Lowe did not say 126 miles. He said, "162 miles to the corner", which is obviously the distance run from noon to evening civil twilight for stellar observation. Calculated 7h 21m @ 22.1 kts =162 miles.
quote:Others try to fudge a solution and come up with something which only reveals their authors' lack of navigational knowledge.
|
Inger Sheil
Moderator
Username: isheil
Post Number: 2849
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 7:23 am: |
|
quote:Just to add to what Noel said, the terms "knots per hour" or "knots an hour" were in common use among seamen in 1912. Captains Moore and Knapp both used "knots per hour" at the US inquiry. The term was also in White Star's contract for carrying the US mail. A greater seaman and writer than any of us, namely Joseph Conrad, regularly used "knots an hour".
It was also common to write of sailing so many knots in a day. Today these expressions are considered incorrect.
On this interesting point, I know of an instance in which James Moody used the term as well. I was going to use the quote for an article once, but realising how confusing the term might be for contemporary readers I edited it out. |
David Haisman
Member
Username: haisey
Post Number: 42
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 8:34 am: |
|
I would consider the term '' Knots per hour'' to be in keeping with that of streaming a log.
Other than that I can't recall bridge officers to commonly use the term at all.
David H |
L. Marmaduke Collins
Member
Username: mariner
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, April 3, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
quote: I believe was to compensate for the current that set the ship to the east and a bit south of her great circle segment[....]Once at the corner it seems that they steered 266° true instead of 265° true again to compensate for current.
Sam,
It should be noted that at noon April 14th, SS Californian's Obs Lat was 42°05'N. Course steered was N61°W (compass) 269°true. At 6:30 p.m. DR Lat was 42° 3'N, when ice message sent to the SS Antillian. At 7:30 p.m. Pole star sight Lat 42°05'N. Course made good from noon was West True.
Collins |
David Concannon
Member
Username: titanic_2005
Post Number: 42
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 3, 2006 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Michael,
I agree it would be significant if we did, in fact, find life preservers in the area where we saw the large concentration of shoes. I don't remember who said they were life preservers, but we were told this by one or more of the experts the day after our dive, after several people had spent many hours reviewing the tapes from the outside camera.
I did not review this portion of the tape again, so I cannot say for sure. What I saw looked to me to be rolled up carpet, which was weird because you rarely, if ever, see textiles in the debris field. Then again, you can not always identify what you are looking at from inside the sub. You have to look at the tapes later because the camera sees more than you can see.
I have been asked to write an article for a magazine that regularly covers underwater exploration. It's not one of the Titanic related publications. In fact, I am not a member of any of the Titanic societies, although I did allow the Canadian Titanic Society to reprint one of my articles a few years ago and they may have made me a member(?).
I believe I have to be careful when I publish or speak about the Titanic because there is a tendency for people to take my personal comments as representations on behalf of my clients. Last year was the first time since 1998 that I was not representing or advising one group or another involved in exploration of the Titanic, so I am a little more free to talk now about my personal involvement in the 2005 expedition. My comments cannot and should not be construed as being made as "so and so's lawyer" or
"the former lawyer for ___."
Anyway, my work schedule has been brutal for the first three months of this year and I have not had time to write now that the History Channel show has aired. My first obligation is to report to The Explorers Club. That report is already late. I wrote a draft article about my dive shortly after the expedition, while the memory was still fresh in my mind, but I have not had a chance to go back and look at it since the fall. Maybe I will publish it somewhere if somebody wants it.
The other article I have been asked to write is the real story of the expedition, which is somewhat different than what you saw on television. It will clear up some of the mistakes that were made in the broadcast.
No. 1 is that we did not discover these hull pieces for the first time in 2005. I saw them on my second dive in 2000, and I believe they were shown on a Discovery Channel program on either the 1996 or 1998 RMST/IFREMER expedition. What is true, however, is that we were the first to really study them and try to understand their significance to the Titanic and its sinking. I sent the subs to the east on the third day because Anatoly Sagalevitch and I already knew these pieces were there, and there were no pieces of the double-bottom hull to the south. We knew there were large pieces of the hull to the east, but we did not know exactly what hull pieces they were or what their significance was. They could have been important, and it turned out that they were.
This story was never fully told on the History Channel. It just was not possible to compress an eight day expedition into a two hour program and still: (1) tell the story of the Titanic; (2) promote the "Deep Sea Detectives" and their show (which was a big part of what the show was designed to do); and (3) tell the story of the expedition. I think LWDG did an outstanding job of balancing multiple priorities and putting together a really phenomenal and thoroughly entertaining show, but the two hour television format did not allow the producers to focus more on just the story of the expedition. That is what I plan to do.
David Concannon
www.explorerconsulting.com
Titanic 2005
|
Michael Cundiff
Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 593
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 12:49 am: |
|
David:
As you know because of our off the list correspondence, coupled with your generosity in providing a photograph to my *expedition members* collection, that I am enthralled with the TITANIC wreck site and outlying debris field. Therefore I stand most appreciative of any input you can provide into your wreck-dive experience.
As an aside...instead of such outcry and belittlement on behalf of Dr. Ballard, along with who knows how much money the 2005 expediton spent? Why then could he not devote such time and money into satisfying the desire of us wreck enthusiasts to furthur understand the manner in which the debris field originated. Having once produced a mosaic of the forward wreck section of TITANIC ('86) did he find it so neccesary to return to TITANIC and reaccompish such feat? And for what gain?
With the undersea technology seemingly available at Dr. Ballard's disposal, why could he not have, for example produced a mosaic of all or even part of the debris field? He speaks of..."there is so much down there". Dr. Ballard why not reward us with a debris-field mosaic instead of this childish continued nonsense over the salvage matter?
Indeed Dr. Ballard... it may be you who needs to "get over it".
Thanks again David...and please keep posting!
Michael Cundiff
USA |
David Concannon
Member
Username: titanic_2005
Post Number: 43
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 4:21 am: |
|
Michael,
I don't have anything against Dr. Ballard personally. He is just one of a long list of people who have made a name for themselves off of Titanic (some better than others). In his defense, I know he has personally paid to compile a database and try to obtain a more complete understanding of the photomosaic completed from images taken by WHOI in 1985 and 1986.
The problem with putting together a complete mosaic of the wreck site and the debris filed is that the Americans, French and Russians have never tried to overlap the data from their various expeditions. In some ways, this would be extremely difficult to do because the different groups use different nav systems and it is difficult to marry them together. This is not Dr. Ballard's fault. In addition, the different groups do not always record the same types of data. For instance, the French have very good video footage with time, date and depth references for most, if not all, of their dives. The Russians rarely record this information, and they almost never videotape their entire dive.
Keep in mind that Dr. Ballard's 2004 expedition was intended to assess the deterioration of the wreck site in the almost 20 years since it was discovered. Some of this was done very well, including the ongoing studies of Dr. Roy Cullimore and the new photomosaic of the bow completed in 2004. I totally disagree with Dr. Ballard's opinion that tourist dives damage the wreck site and it is wrong to recover artifacts for public display, but these are just competing opinions. It does not make one of us right and the other wrong. It just means we disagree.
There are hundreds of people who have contributed to our knowledge of the Titanic. It's a shame that most of us would be hard-pressed to name even ten of these people. Unfortunately, this may never change.
David Concannon
Titanic 2005
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2005
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 5:10 am: |
|
David,
I wasn't out there on the Keldysh with you guys, but I have watched much of the video, including the unedited dive footage. I read your posts above and have the following questions:
- In the dive footage, I do not see the "large concentration of shoes" that you describe. I do see some shoes, but there appears to be no pattern...no matching pairs, and not in what I would call a "concentration," unless you consider them to be concentrated within the loose confines of the debris trail. Since you saw the shoes, could you elaborate on what I might not be seeing in the dive footage? Did you identify any matching pairs, or other personal effects in the vicinity?
- I was surprised to read that you saw the double-bottom pieces in 2000. In my talks with Mike Harris about the grounding theory, he never mentioned coming across those pieces during that expedition. Was Mike with you in the Mir when you came across those pieces; if not, was this a find that he overlooked?
- I watched TFM:MP again tonight and looked for corroboration for your comments above. There was one scene shot during the maintenance day when the team was discussing where to go on what would be the final dive. According to what is shown during the show, Bill Lange appears to be the one suggesting taking a look at a "lot of heavy debris to the east of the stern," based off what he describes as "large holes in the '85/'86 survey." He looks like he's talking to you. Later in the scene, Roger Long speculates about large pieces being out there and you didn't jump in to describe what you saw in 2000. Was this staged? Did the show give a false portrayal of the actual content of the conversation?
- Later in the show, you are shown going to the Nav Lab. Roger tells you that they found the double-bottom pieces and describes them to you in detail. You say, "Show me where they found it," and Roger points to a chart before the cutaway. Again, was this scene staged?
- Who was the expert on the Keldysh that identified the carpet-like debris as possible lifejacket remains? Was it Simon Mills? He's the only "expert" that I have heard of in the crew...was there someone else of whom I'm unaware?
- If Anatoly knew of the existence of these pieces, why is it that he didn't brief Genya? Robert is quoted on the soundtrack as claiming that Genya had never before seen the forward piece.
- Speaking of this second piece, I examined both "Titanic: Anatomy Of A Disaster" and "Titanic: Answers From The Abyss," the two documentaries that chronicled the 1996 and 1998 expeditions, respectively. Having studied both double-bottom sections in the unedited 2005 video, I can say with absolute certainty that the only piece shown in both of the aforementioned Discovery Channel documentaries is that of the after section of double-bottom. At no point do we see the forward section. In addition, Bill Garzke wrote of only one piece in his 1997 forensic report. In 2002, Garzke wrote in his book, "Titanic Ships, Titanic Disasters," that although he was aware that there remained a missing section of double-bottom, it had yet to be found. As Garzke was the naval architecture consultant to RMST, how is it that he was unaware of the second (forward) section, as late as 2002?
- In your post above, you said, "We knew there were large pieces of the hull to the east, but we did not know exactly what hull pieces they were or what their significance was." If you saw the pieces in 2000, does that mean that you were unable at that time to identify them as sections of the double-bottom? Why not? Were you for some reason unable to follow up on your find?
- One last question: When you failed to find the "ribbons of steel" during the first dive, why weren't the hull sections that you saw in 2000 targeted for the very next dive, especially since the weather was making the dive schedule questionable? Wasn't it a risk to wait until the third dive to follow up on your 2000 observation?
I've formed an impression from watching the video and now that impression is challenged by what you have claimed in your posts above. Any clarification that you can provide to help me understand the true picture aboard Keldysh would be much appreciated.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9695
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 6:30 am: |
|
>>Having once produced a mosaic of the forward wreck section of TITANIC ('86) did he find it so neccesary to return to TITANIC and reaccompish such feat? And for what gain?<<
My understanding is that Dr. Ballard's goal was to document the on going deterioration of the wreck by producing a more current mosiac to compare to the first one that was ever made. Speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem with that and I confess to being at a loss as to why anyone else would.
While I don't agree with everything the man has to say, a lot of it is on some highly subjective matters of opinion, salvage for example, and he has a lot of company who are of the same mind as he is on this. I don't see that there's any right or wrong on that. Just people with differing points of view and the last time I looked, that was hardly a crime.
I'll base my agreements or disagreements on the merits of his evidence and the points and counterpoints made, and without making it personal. The ad hominums are getting old, serve no useful purpose, and I'll have no part of it.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
David Concannon
Member
Username: titanic_2005
Post Number: 44
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 7:57 am: |
|
Hi Parks,
I will try to answer your questions as best I can:
-- In the dive footage, I do not see the "large concentration of shoes" that you describe. I do see some shoes, but there appears to be no pattern...no matching pairs, and not in what I would call a "concentration," unless you consider them to be concentrated within the loose confines of the debris trail. Since you saw the shoes, could you elaborate on what I might not be seeing in the dive footage? Did you identify any matching pairs, or other personal effects in the vicinity?
Response: On my three prior dives in the debris field, I have seen a few shoes here and there, but never a pair. On my dive in 2005, we saw a lot more shoes in this one area than I have ever seen in all my prior dives combined. I do indeed consider them to be concentrated within the loose confines of the debris trail. I am not 100% certain if I saw a pair of shoes in this area, but I recall that there may have been at least one occasion when we thought we did. We did not see additional trace elements of human remains, but then again, we did not stop to look at every shoe. You may recall from watching the tapes that I frequently call out "There's a shoe, there's another shoe" and so on. People seem to think you se shoes on every dive to the Titanic -- you don't. You're lucky if you see one or two. We saw a lot more than that in this area, and not all of them are on film. (If you have watched the film of this dive and listened to the audio, you know that we had A LOT of problems maneuvering the outside camera.)
- I was surprised to read that you saw the double-bottom pieces in 2000. In my talks with Mike Harris about the grounding theory, he never mentioned coming across those pieces during that expedition. Was Mike with you in the Mir when you came across those pieces; if not, was this a find that he overlooked?
Response: No, Mike was not with me on my second dive. I was with Anatoly and another diver. And I have never discussed the grounding theory or the double bottom hull with Michael Harris.
On the 2000 expedition, after conducting the first few dives in a haphazard fashion, we later decided to divide the wreck site into 400 square meter grids and then systematically search one grid on every dive day. The grid would be flipped on each successive day. On my second dive, I was assigned to the area to the east and northeast of the stern, and this is where I saw the pieces. Keep in mind, however, that we were searching for small artifacts for the museum exhibition, and we were not particularly interested in large sections of the hull or another "Big Piece." I saw the hull sections, thought they were interesting, and went back to searching for small items to retrieve. I never heard about the grounding theory or the double bottom hull until I arrived in St. Johns on the first morning of the 2005 expedition, so I had no reason to think about it or the significance of these sections in 2000.
- I watched TFM:MP again tonight and looked for corroboration for your comments above. There was one scene shot during the maintenance day when the team was discussing where to go on what would be the final dive. According to what is shown during the show, Bill Lange appears to be the one suggesting taking a look at a "lot of heavy debris to the east of the stern," based off what he describes as "large holes in the '85/'86 survey." He looks like he's talking to you. Later in the scene, Roger Long speculates about large pieces being out there and you didn't jump in to describe what you saw in 2000. Was this staged? Did the show give a false portrayal of the actual content of the conversation?
Response: Bill's comments were not staged. Roger's comments may have been. A lot of times when we were having conversations like this in the lab we were asked to repeat the conversations for the cameras. The words did not always come out the same way twice. I specifically remember exploring to the east with Bill, and not for the benefit of the camera, but I do not recall if Roger was part of the original conversation.
- Later in the show, you are shown going to the Nav Lab. Roger tells you that they found the double-bottom pieces and describes them to you in detail. You say, "Show me where they found it," and Roger points to a chart before the cutaway. Again, was this scene staged?
Response: This scene was staged. We reshot it several times from several different angles and I was told what to say.
- Who was the expert on the Keldysh that identified the carpet-like debris as possible lifejacket remains? Was it Simon Mills? He's the only "expert" that I have heard of in the crew...was there someone else of whom I'm unaware?
Response: It could have been Simon or it could have been Bill. It also could have been Bill's assistant. They spent the most time reviewing the sub tapes. Like I said, this information was conveyed to me later, but I did not look at the tapes again. I never thought at the time that I was looking at life preservers, but somebody else seems to think I was. What do you think now that you have seen the tapes?
- If Anatoly knew of the existence of these pieces, why is it that he didn't brief Genya? Robert is quoted on the soundtrack as claiming that Genya had never before seen the forward piece.
Response: I don't know the answer to this question. You would have to ask Anatoly or Genya. The decision to go to the east to investigate these pieces was made during a conversation I had with Anatoly on the pool deck on the maintenance day before dive days two and three. This was before I had the conversation with Bill Lange. Anatoly suggested that we go and look at these large pieces to the east, I mentioned this to Bill down in the lab and he concurred.
- Speaking of this second piece, I examined both "Titanic: Anatomy Of A Disaster" and "Titanic: Answers From The Abyss," the two documentaries that chronicled the 1996 and 1998 expeditions, respectively. Having studied both double-bottom sections in the unedited 2005 video, I can say with absolute certainty that the only piece shown in both of the aforementioned Discovery Channel documentaries is that of the after section of double-bottom. At no point do we see the forward section. In addition, Bill Garzke wrote of only one piece in his 1997 forensic report. In 2002, Garzke wrote in his book, "Titanic Ships, Titanic Disasters," that although he was aware that there remained a missing section of double-bottom, it had yet to be found. As Garzke was the naval architecture consultant to RMST, how is it that he was unaware of the second (forward) section, as late as 2002?
Response: You have to ask Bill Garzke that question. But keep in mind that PH Nargeolet stated unequivocally before TFM aired that these pieces were known to the French and studied extensively years ago. He should know. Furthermore, the fact that one of these pieces had already been shown on a Discovery Channel special was discussed in the lab on the Keldysh at the wreck site last August. Anatoly also knew they were there.
- In your post above, you said, "We knew there were large pieces of the hull to the east, but we did not know exactly what hull pieces they were or what their significance was." If you saw the pieces in 2000, does that mean that you were unable at that time to identify them as sections of the double-bottom? Why not? Were you for some reason unable to follow up on your find?
Response: See above. After two prior expeditions to recover "The Big Piece," large pieces of the hull were most definitely not on our list of high value targets in 2000. We were searching for small objects to be displayed in museums, based on a list prepared by the curator of the collection. I was far more interested in looking for leather bags in 2000 than I was in studying pieces of the hull, and I was unaware of the grounding theory back then. Studying these pieces just wasn't a priority in 2000 because they weren't going to be recovered, and we had a lot of wreck site to cover.
- One last question: When you failed to find the "ribbons of steel" during the first dive, why weren't the hull sections that you saw in 2000 targeted for the very next dive, especially since the weather was making the dive schedule questionable? Wasn't it a risk to wait until the third dive to follow up on your 2000 observation?
Response: There seems to be a lot of confusion about the "ribbons of steel" and the double-bottom hull sections. I never said I saw double-bottom hull sections to the south, but I was asked if I could find them to the south in 2005 to support the grounding theory. This was a tall order because I did not see them there in the first place.
What I saw were sections of the side of the hull that looked like they were peeled away like the skin of a potato. I saw these on the way to the hill were were looking for in 2005, and I thought on the east side of the hill back in 2000. However, we did not take the same route to this hill in 2005 that we did in 2000. Instead, we were too far to the east. Therefore, we did not see the same things in 2005 that we saw in 2000.
When it became obvious that we were off-track, we navigated to the coordinates I had for the hill by traversing to the west. Even then it was hard to find the hill. I knew that the piece of metal on top of the hill was not going to be a piece of the double-bottom hull, and I was fairly skeptical that we would find anything like this to the south, but we looked anyway. I still don't know if we would have found the other hull sections if we had been able to retrace our steps exactly from 2000. As you know from being down there, if you pass just 25 meters to the left or right of something you flew over the day before, chances are you are not going to see it. Nevertheless, the one thing I was definitely wrong about was my belief that there was a piece of the hull holding up the eastern side of the hill. There was a sharp cut-off to the side of the hill, which created the illusion of a wall, but there was no hull section there.
You were out with Mike Harris. You know that he was in the same sub I was on August 6, 2000 and he was totally unable to refind the same spot we had been to in 2000. At least I was able to refind it, and it contained an unexplored area of debris and pieces of metal like we said it did.
There was some investigation of the area to the south on the second dive day, but the primary objective on Day 2 was to get shots of the bow and examine the bilge keels. John and Richie did not dive on Day 2 either, and they were the stars of the show. We were also still trying to get in a fourth dive day as of Day 2, and I believe there were additional scenes and interviews being shot topside on this day.
Nevertheless, by the end of Day 2, it was obvious to me that the most promising place to look for double bottom hull pieces was to the east. At least some of us knew there were hull sections there, even if we did not know about their significance. So that's why the subs went to the east on Day 3.
I hope this answers your questions. If not, please feel free to call me.
Thanks,
David Concannon
Titanic 2005
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 4:50 pm: |
|
There seems to be two threads running here, one dealing with distribution of items in the debris field, the other dealing with navigation. I suggest Titanic navigation issues be addressed in different thread. I'll try and find an appropriate one to reopen.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael Cundiff
Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 595
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hello David:
First pardon my referring to Dr. Ballard's '05 expedition. Yes it was '04. (My how the yrs. fly by!!)
Yes David, I should agree that an alliance of the leaders (American, French, Russian) has been a problem all along...however dissapointing.
I offer a quote from James P. Delgado's dive with the Russsians in 2000...
"The area around the stern is thick with debris, suggesting that even after more than 100 salvage dives vast portions of the wreck site remain unknown and untouched. Off to one side, we spot a pair of boots. Small, flat-heeled, and calf-lenghth, they are the shoes of a working-class woman, perhaps a steerage passenger. They lie side-by-side and are still laced".
"Our sub-pilot believes we are in an area of the wreck he has not seen before although he is not certain. This highlights a troubling aspect of the salvage dives. The last time I saw IFREMER's dive pilots, none has collated and assembled onto an overall plan of the site".
Mr. Delgado goes on to mention his doubt of the Russian's failure to map the wreck site as well. It is a shame.
BTW, during David Livington's dive with RMS Titanic Inc., directly upon his exit from the NAUTILE he did mention..."There are alot of shoes down there...men, women and children".
Beings that I have so many VHS tapes in my TITANIC library, at this time I could not pinpoint precisely which tape it is on. However Livingston was a participant in only one year's expedition.
The aforementioned James P. Delgado quote can be fround at http://www.archaeology.org/0101/abstracts/titanic1.html
Michael Cundiff
USA |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 6:17 pm: |
|
David Concannon: Do you have any quantified data on the average sizes of the pieces of coal found at different distances from the stern section? What I mean by size are estimates of average diameter of the pieces seen at different distances relative to the stern section. I assume from reading some of the previous posts that this coal streak extended SSW for about 2 Km starting from the stern section?
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
David Concannon
Member
Username: titanic_2005
Post Number: 45
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 2:30 am: |
|
Michael,
Jim Delagado is absolutely right. After 20 expeditions and 20 years, there is still much to be explored. However, I am not too sure about his comment, "The last time I saw IFREMER's dive pilots, none has collated and assembled onto an overall plan of the site." I have a comprehensive graphic of all of IFREMER's dives, identified on a one page map of the wreck site. However, this may not be in the same form that Mr. Delgado would expect to see from a full blown archaeological dive plan.
Michael, no such data on the coal exists, at least not to my knowledge.
You are correct that this coal streak extends SSW for about 2 Km starting from the stern section, with smaller pieces being at the outer edge. Based on my observations, the pieces of coal range in size from the size of brick to the size of a golf ball, with the average size being about the size of your fist. The size distribution is random for quite a long way out from the stern.
It looks like kitchen coal, as opposed to bunker coal, and the pieces we examined were coke, which was lighter and used in the ovens. Some pieces that you see in other areas, particularly closer to the stern, are the size of small boulders or basketballs. In fact, it is often extremely difficult to tell the difference between a leather bag and a large piece of coal, until the light hits it just so and you can make out the features of a piece of luggage.
David Concannon
Titanic 2005
|
David Concannon
Member
Username: titanic_2005
Post Number: 46
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 2:31 am: |
|
Sorry, the second answer was supposed to be addressed to Sam.
Titanic 2005
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2006
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:08 am: |
|
David,
Sorry for the tardy reply, but today was one of those rare days when I actually had to work for my pay. Normally, I post from work but today was not one of those days.
Thank you for your detailed reply. After reading through it all, I have but a few more questions:
- When you mention Bill's assistant, could that have been MaryAnn?
- If you weren't aware of the grounding theory or something similar until you arrived in St. John's, then what significance did you put to the "ribbons of steel?" What did you pitch to the History Channel that convinced them to send LWDG to the wrecksite?
- I was not clear when I asked about scenes being "staged." I understand how events may need to be acted through again in order to properly capture the moment on film. I guess what I meant to ask was this...do you feel that the true nature of events was in any way misrepresented during the staged scenes in TFM:MP?
- In your post #42 above, you state that "No. 1 is that we did not discover these hull pieces for the first time in 2005. I saw them on my second dive in 2000, and I believe they were shown on a Discovery Channel program on either the 1996 or 1998 RMST/IFREMER expedition. What is true, however, is that we were the first to really study them and try to understand their significance to the Titanic and its sinking." It's your use of "What is true, however..." that intrigues me. What is not true?
I talked with Mike Harris today and he explained to me why the double-bottom sightings (from both his 2000 and 2005 fly-overs) didn't factor into our talk aboard the Keldysh about the grounding theory. I better understand now why the double-bottom wasn't given a rigorous analysis before.
Sorry for the seemingly endless questions, but I am hearing multiple versions of the 2005 expedition and am trying to determine what is true and not. Speaking of which, Simon Mills just published his account in the latest "The Titanic Commutator," which should just now be reaching THS members.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9701
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 6:22 am: |
|
My own copy if The Commutator came in the post last week. For those who don't have it yet, I think you'll find it worth the wait.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 88
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:11 am: |
|
Thanks for updating us on that Michael. Usually I receive The Commutator really quickly, but for some reason it is taking quite a while this time. I am looking forward to seeing Simon's article.
Take care,
Tad |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Tad, the Commutator has arrived in Seattle. I got it Tuesday.
Bill
|
Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400
Post Number: 340
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Has anyone noticed coal sitting on the stern section of the wreck. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9705
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 6:27 pm: |
|
>>Has anyone noticed coal sitting on the stern section of the wreck.<<
No...I'll have to take another look at the photos I have. Can't say as it's really all that difficult to understand. Coal's a lot lighter then steel and the smart money is that the hull in all it's large and small pieces made it to the bottom first.
The coal still raining down would have been the runner up in that race.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 89
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:45 pm: |
|
Bill and Michael,
Finally received my issue in the mail today. That probably marks the first time someone has received an issue later than you have on the West coast Bill, haha!
Michael, I agree regarding the coal. The heavy pieces of debris would have hit the bottom first, and then the lighter pieces of coal, more heavily influenced by the current and length of time it took them to reach the bottom, would not have landed on exactly the same spot as the hull sections.
Take care,
Tad |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 2:01 am: |
|
Thanks David for your reply. There may be a few hidden secrets that lie in that distribution of that coal. It may be an area for further study if time and money allow some day.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
David Concannon
Member
Username: titanic_2005
Post Number: 47
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 4:58 am: |
|
Parks,
Today was when of those frequent days when I had to work for a living. It's midnight and I am still at the office.
I think you're asking me to post my entire article, which I have not written yet, on-line here. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have, but I think you have so many questions it would be easier if you just called me. BTW, I have been hearing from some of the same people you have been hearing from.
My kids ease into spring break starting tomorrow (half days to the end of the week), and then I am bringing them to California next week, but you should be able to catch me in the office in the morning.
Thanks,
David
Titanic 2005
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2009
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 6:18 am: |
|
David,
Actually, I believe that the people you are referring to also contacted me today. Some of my questions were answered...enough that I am content to wait for the publication of your article for the rest.
Thanks,
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Mike Witte
Member
Username: the_other_mike
Post Number: 11
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Hello All!
I too have received my copy of the Commutator, and I'm still having a hard time understanding or lending support to the grounding/breakup theories. Parks, I cannot wait to see your analysis of the breakup in the next Commutator.
Side note: I hope everyone who has their copies of the Commuator get to read Dr. Ballard's response to the article that somewhat vilified and altered his response in the NYT regarding the above discoveries of the sections of double-bottom. He also touches base on many other 'myths' and accusations that have followed him throughout his career post-Titanic. I have always held Dr. Ballard in high esteem, and respect his abilities and experience in not only Titanic, but his numerous expeditions to many other shipwrecks. His article in the Commutator IMHO cements my beliefs.
As far as the 'get over it' comment goes, unless it was mentioned on another board(and I'm sure it has), Dr. Ballard was gracious enough to respond to the NYT article immediately to THS members to set the record straight. I won't waste my time posting any of these comments, as I'm sure everyone who is either a THS member already knows, and/or has access to the material.
The "Other" Mike |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2011
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Mike,
I think that it's fairly well established that Dr. Ballard was "ambushed" by the AP reporter and that the "get over it" comment was borne out of frustration and not representative of his true beliefs. The incident does, however, serve as a warning...be careful when talking to the media.
Anyone who tries to make more of the "get over it" comment than that is willing to dismiss common sense in order to spin the situation to their own benefit.
And yes, I have some fundamental differences with Dr. Ballard, but in this situation, I sympathise with him completely.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Mike Witte
Member
Username: the_other_mike
Post Number: 12
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Parks,
Thanks for the reply. I was pretty certain that this has been thrown back and forth between those who have differing opinions of Dr. Ballard.
Can you, without giving too much away for the next Commutator, give us at least a reason why you don't buy into this newest theory? Watching the special a few times, I noticed your reaction being that of skepticism...maybe I'm just looking too hard...LoL...
If they are trying to tie their breakup theory with the sudden forward lurch of the ship that Lightoller said he felt before being washed off the ship, is there witness testimony that said the ship then felt like it was pulling itself back together?
btw, I hope that my letter in the Sea Poste regarding your take on Cameron's 2005 expedition was okay.
The "Other" Mike |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2012
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 6:20 pm: |
|
Mike,
There's one major difference between what Roger Long proposed and what I believed to have happened. I believe that the stem (bow) arced irresistably (and, as time progressed, increasingly) downward. Roger believes that downward arc was arrested somewhat by remaining buoyancy in the bow and the effect of the stern on the bow. I go into the detail of this in the Commutator.
As I watched myself on TV, I thought that I looked more constipated than skeptical. :-) I listened intently to what everybody said during the WHOI gathering and added a few comments of my own. I did have my doubts at the time, but Roger knows his business very well and before I could criticise, I needed to have something viable to offer as a alternative. It took me (with outside help) a few weeks to develop the scenario that I am proposing in the next Commutator.
I don't believe that Lightoller's "plunge" can be fully explained in either Roger's or my proposed scenarios. We have speculation, but no proof as yet.
I don't know that I saw your letter in the Sea Poste, sorry. I'm not sure that I even know what the Sea Poste is...or am I missing something obvious?
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Mike Witte
Member
Username: the_other_mike
Post Number: 13
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Parks,
Thanks for that tidbit of information. I eagerly await the next Commutator to see your point of view.
Also, according to eyewitness accounts, the power remained on until the breakup occurred. If that's the case, the timeline for what has been proposed as the possible scenario to the breakup is in doubt. You can't have power still going to the ship when it's already in half, right? And what about the first expansion joint? If these joints do what they were designed to do, then you will eventually get a bend in both joints, which is what happened. Whether the slight break in the first joint in the bow section helped aleviate the pressure may never be fully known, but surely it too had something to do with keeping the ship's structural integrity intact right up till the end.
The Sea Poste is at the end of the Commutator, THS's version of Letter to the Editor. When Cameron's 2005 expedition was shown live, I pulled from both the ET board, and from the show what happened when you mentioned the time confusion of when and where the show was aired. It's in the Commutator that had an article on Lucille Lady Duff Gordon.
The "Other" Mike |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2013
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Mike,
What if I told you that I am currently looking into credible reports that lights continued burning after the break, possibly even after the bow and stern separated? And as unlikely as that seems, there may be a way to give some support to those reports using both technical speculation and forensic observation?
Also, remember that expansion joints were included in the ship's design to allow the superstructure to flex atop the hull structure. Speaking in the broadest of terms, the expansion joint is a part of the superstructure, which sits atop the hull structure. There is a way that an expansion joint can affect the strength deck below it, but not because it penetrates that deck...it doesn't. If you look at the forward expansion joint on the wreck today, you'll notice that the hull directly underneath it appears unaffected by the opened joint above it (which raises a whole new set of questions). At any rate, the open forward expansion joint would not relieve any stresses in the hull structure. Only a break in the hull structure itself would do that.
By the way, the forward expansion joint opened within its limits on the surface, as best as we can tell. The excessive opening of the joint observed today on the wreck is the result of the impact with the ocean floor and the compression of decks in the after end of the bow section.
Regarding the Sea Poste...I see. I am not a member of any Titanic society, so I do not regularly receive the Commutator or other society periodicals. I do receive complimentary copies of those issues to which I contribute. Therefore, I'm not familiar with the regular features, I don't have the issue which you described, and I did not see your letter. Sorry.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Mike Witte
Member
Username: the_other_mike
Post Number: 14
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 9:21 pm: |
|
Parks,
That WOULD be incredible to hear that lights could have still been on after the break. Thank you for letting me know about this potential possibility.
In a nutshell, I mentioned on the Sea Poste how confusing it was for us in the States that were tuned into the Cameron 2005 special that Sunday night. I'm in the Central Time Zone, so I got the Discovery 1-hour special first, then the non-live show of the overall expedition, then another different special came on for another hour, then the Live show aired. I understand that not everybody got to see it that way. Quite confusing...
I understand that these expansion joints were built to enable the ship to be flexible, especially in rough seas. These transatlantic liners needed to be built tough as nails. Thanks for clarifying that aspect as well.
The "Other" Mike |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2014
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Mike,
Re: the lights. That's something that I'm investigating now. I'm not ready to propose it even as a theory. I have some eyewitness testimony, some interesting forensic clues that may or may not be telling me what I think they're telling me, and some possibilities in the technical interpretation of Titanic's systems. It may amount to nothing...I just have to see where the evidence leads me.
The US broadcast of LMoT was confusing...three different edits were shown to US audiences. I am hoping that Discovery will take the definitive edit (overseen by Cameron himself and never aired) and make it available on DVD. For some reason, Discovery is delaying that release...don't know why.
The expansion joints were designed to make the superstructure flexible. The hull structure had flexibility included in its design, as do all ships. Many modern ships, thanks to advances in metallurgy and design techniques, have the superstructure incorporated into the total structure and therefore do not require expansion joints.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Mike Witte
Member
Username: the_other_mike
Post Number: 15
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 12:47 am: |
|
Parks,
Right, in fact, watching how they assembled the QM2, or many other newer liners of today, I see how far technology has progressed with time and effort.
I know this isn't 100% on this lights-out issue. I guess all I can say is good luck with your research, and I can't wait for the next Commutator.
The "Other" Mike |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9719
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 4:13 am: |
|
>>and I'm still having a hard time understanding or lending support to the grounding/breakup theories.<<
Mike, speaking only on my own take of the grounding theory, all I can say is that it's the only one I've seen thus far which explains how the ship could have clipped the iceberg in such a fashion as to confine the damage to the forward third of the ship in a manner that's consistant with how ships actually handle. If you haven't done so, you might want to read the White Paper that David Brown and Parks Stepehenson wrote on the matter. You can find it at http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/1511/ It should help explain a lot.
Bear in mind that if what they believe is on the mark...and I believe that it is...then there's no way that the History Channel expedition would have found evidence of it as contact would have been broken at or near Boiler Room Six. This particular area is buried in the mud.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
David Haisman
Member
Username: haisey
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 8:44 am: |
|
Regarding lights shining under the water as Titanic sank, this was distinctly recognised by some of those observers from Lifeboat 14.
Expansion joints were always a feature on all Harland and Wolff ships that I had sailed on, e.g. 3 Royal Mail, and 6 Union Castle liners, not to mention others.
It can also be noted on large riveted ocean going liners, the heavy riveting higher up on the superstructure. ( Next time anyone visits ''the Mary'' take note.)
The higher the superstructure, the greater the movement.
When at sea in heavy weather, passengers would be fascinated by the movement of the expansion deck plates on the boat decks and when it was pointed out to them, also the tightening and slackening of the fore and aft mast stays as the vessel pounds into the heavy seas.
When a ship is in a huge swell or heavy sea, sometimes the fore and aft sections are momentarily supported by the swell leaving amidships, just briefly, not supported at all.
This also takes place when the swell is amidships and again, for and aft are left momentarily, unsupported by the sea.
This causes tremendous stress and strain on the upper works amd therefore, there must be movement to compensate.
I'm not looking for clever replies as this is simple information for our well deserving landlubbers only.
David H |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2016
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 4:02 pm: |
|
David,
You would be saddened by the state of the Queen Mary today. I was aboard her a few weeks ago and because Tom McCluskie, Simon Mills, Roger Long and I were discussing Olympic/Titanic/Britannic's expansion joints at the time, I paid special attention to the state of the Mary's joints. The caretakers of the ship are not keeping up with the ongoing corrosion and in the matter of the joints, they decided to simply bolt and/or weld steel plate over the joints to hide the cancerous rust underneath. You can imagine that this is not a satisfactory fix and now even the cover plates are badly corroded. I can only imagine the state of the actual joint itself underneath. The brass cover plate that runs across the deck is bolted down on both sides and the brass ends that mark the breaks in the railing are fused together (all the steel hardware for the gates in the Sun Deck railing are welded shut, which we found when we tried to load one of the lifeboats for the Darlow Smithson film crew). It was just one more indication (among many) that the Mary is no longer a sea-going vessel.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Mike Witte
Member
Username: the_other_mike
Post Number: 16
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Remember, we're talking about a ship that hasn't seen open water in 40 years too, without the luxury of a full-fledged drydock to make any significant repairs under the waterline either. On top of that, QM is over 70 years old as well. Recently another ghost hunt special called "Most Haunted" visited the QM. One of their treks into the ship went deep down into the Engine Room. The rust and degradation of the plates here is quite evident. It's sad to see the current owners of the QM either not willing or capable of making proper repairs to the old lady. Cost and time is the QM's main enemy right now.
The "Other" Mike |
David Haisman
Member
Username: haisey
Post Number: 47
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Hello Parks and Mike,
It doesn't sound too good at all about the ''Old Girl''
Quite simply when these great old liners are laid up indefinitely they can never be fully maintained as their function in the first place was to be continually in service, with all parts working and earning money for their owners.
There are just too many sections of the vessel that will always be neglected due to the ship's inactive state.
I last signed on the ''Mary'' in August 1959 and since then, a great deal of water has passed under the bridge, so to speak.
I haven't set eyes on her since leaving Southampton for the last time and from what you tell me, perhaps it's better that way.
Thanks both of you for the update,
David H |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 6:01 pm: |
|
I remember when I was a little boy in the 1950s we would ride down to lower Manhattan in NY City on the west side highway and pass at least one of "Queens" docked at their pier in the Hudson each time. Always a beautiful sight to behold. I don't know exactly why, but I always favored the QM over the QE. Maybe because she had 3 funnels instead of 2. They both looked about the same size to me, always bigger than anything else docked at any of the other piers. And that sleek bow! Just some of the things that impress a ten year old.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40? 23' 50'' N, 74? 13' 55'' W.
|
David Haisman
Member
Username: haisey
Post Number: 48
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Hello Sam,
Yes, they were impressive ships and I felt much the same as you as a boy when visiting the docks after school on my bike to watch these leviathans being nursed into and out of their berths.
It was also worth being on lookout when passing the other ''Queen'' going the other way, and at night, the turning on of flood lit funnels as we passed.
Not forgetting of course the race we never won with the United States astern on the horizon at sunrise and by sunset, on the horizon ahead after taking all day to overhaul us.
Now I'm getting carried away,
However, I've written an article for Anthony Cunningham on what it was like to crew these great liners which should be coming out in his book later this year I think.
David H |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2018
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 7:41 pm: |
|
David,
I talked with someone just the other day who is involved with the SS United States and her condition is downright disgraceful. She might as well be sent to the brakers...she has been thoroughly gutted and sits without even the most minimal of upkeep in Philadelphia. Not a fitting end for a glorious liner. What is now happening to the United States could one day happen to the Queen Mary.
My uncle was the 2nd Engineer aboard the SS United States. To him, the ship is already gone. I'm starting to understand why he feels that way.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
David Haisman
Member
Username: haisey
Post Number: 49
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Parks,
Once someone has spent some time on these great ships and felt a bit of pride by serving on them, it's always a pity to see them decaying in this way.
I remember her coming up Southampton Water on her maiden voyage after taking the Blue Ribband off of the ''Mary''
As you say, it's better if they take them off to the breakers rather than to see them lying alongside deteriorating for decades .
David H |
Mike Witte
Member
Username: the_other_mike
Post Number: 17
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 6:25 am: |
|
Why and HOW did Philly get the United States in the first place??!!?? How very sad indeed.
Add ships of war to that list with ships of peace. I'm aware that there are many sections of some of the older warships(some pre-dating QM if memory serves) permanently moored that are blocked off due to rust and decay that they have yet to make any effort to repair.
It's not necessarily the current owners' fault here. It's not like they have the millions of dollars to maintain and upkeep these massive vessels. It's very hard to get anybody to foot the bill to keep the lights on on some of them, I'm positive of that. Only the kind donations of outside sources keeps them going.
To those who remember working on these fine ships, I recall a quote from a famous engineer when he fondly recalled the first ship he was on as Chief Engineer:
"It's like the first time you fall in love. Ye don't ever love a woman quite that way again."
The "Other" Mike |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 2023
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 7:00 am: |
|
Mike,
We came very close to losing the historic and unique USS Olympia in Philadelphia a few years back. The corrosion and decay was outpacing the resources of the privately-run and well-meaning Cruiser Olympia Association. Drastic measures had to be taken, and the COA was taken over by the Independence Seaport Museum, which raised the $5 million needed to institute needed restoration. That effort is still ongoing and the costs continue to mount, but the Olympia is still with us and in no immediate danger of being lost.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9735
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 7:19 am: |
|
>>but the Olympia is still with us and in no immediate danger of being lost.<<
That's reassuring. The Olympia is a unique vessel and one of the very last of her kind remaining. I wish Long Beach would put the same effort into the Queen Mary. There are a lot of well meaning aspirants out there who want to preserve historic vessels but precious few of those efforts ever survive close contact with financial reality.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael Cundiff
Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 599
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 8:27 pm: |
|
Matthew Tulloch participated in several artifact recovery dives with his father/RMSTI/IFREMER.
During private correspondance with Matt, he stated the heaviest piece of coal he handled himself was 75 lbs!
Nice chunk of anthracite...as opposed to the one many of us own.
Michael Cundiff
USA |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
