Boat deck resurfacing

Seungho Kang

Seungho Kang

Member
As we all know, physics don't support the v-break theory. However, there were survivors on the boat deck that felt it rising.
But 2nd officer Lightoller saw the ship take a dive while he was at or near the starboard side of the ship.
“The ship then took a dive, and I turned face forward and also took a dive.“
How many people felt the deck rising, and what side of the boat deck were they?
Would it be possible for the bow to roll to starboard instead of rising entirely?
 
Brad Rousse

Brad Rousse

Member
What they probably felt was a redistribution of the failing buoyancy of the ship. Remember that Titanic listed both port and starboard during the sinking due to what the water did and didn't have access to.

How many people felt the deck rising, and what side of the boat deck were they?
It's impossible to know. These people were in the dark, thrashing for their lives and trying to react to something happening very fast all around them.
 
Kyle Naber

Kyle Naber

Member
Those on the deck were probably experiencing the port list worsening after the ship momentarily had evened out. The starboard side would have risen up as the port side dipped under.

Those in the boats probably were witnessing the aft end of the bow rise up slightly after the break, or simply debris. If not in this case, there just might be a confusion with naval terminology. One person could literally just say "bow" and mean "stern."
 
Dan Kappes

Dan Kappes

Member
Some people don't know the difference between the front part of the ship and the back. (bow and stern respectively)

And it's possible that debris like the Grand Staircase and the aft end of the bow briefly re-surfaced after the breakup, but for only a few minutes before sinking again, so people weren't quite sure what they'd seen in the dark.

Which explains why the famous Thayer drawing shows the bow inaccurately completely re-surfacing after the breakup.
 
chrismireya

chrismireya

Member
Good points. It is all about perspective and vantage. These individuals were at positions in which their vantage point could be deceiving. For instance, many people cite the drawings attributed to Jack Thayer in support of the V breakup theory or resurfacing of the forward bow. The problem, of course, is that those drawings do NOT represent the vantage point of Jack Thayer.

In reality, Thayer jumped off the starboard side of Titanic amidship. He landed in the water, was nearly crushed by the second funnel, was shocked by the wave caused by that funnel before luckily feeling the overturned Collapsible B. He stated that he was helped up on it and was facing the ship.

Collapsible B had to be close enough to Titanic for all of this to happen. After all, after the breakup, he stated that the stern corkscrewed around to the point that the propellers were nearly above them (*and they feared that it would come crashing down on them).

Thus, when Thayer witnessed the breakup, it was from this perspective. He was never at a vantage point in which those drawings could be accurate.
 
W

William_2019

Guest
As we all know, physics don't support the v-break theory. However, there were survivors on the boat deck that felt it rising.
But 2nd officer Lightoller saw the ship take a dive while he was at or near the starboard side of the ship.
“The ship then took a dive, and I turned face forward and also took a dive.“
How many people felt the deck rising, and what side of the boat deck were they?
Would it be possible for the bow to roll to starboard instead of rising entirely?

Here is a video on youtube which describes in good detail how the bow rose up.


 
chrismireya

chrismireya

Member
Here is a video on youtube which describes in good detail how the bow rose up.

The theory defies several things:
1.) The principles of buoyancy.
2.) MOST eyewitness testimony.
3.) What we know about the timeline of those who left the ship (because there were still lifeboats being lowered at the point in which this could even be remotely plausible).
4.) What we ascertain from the wreckage itself.

BUOYANCY:

Once the bow has submerged, even a breach in the amidship hull would not cause it to rise out of the water. It would simply go down even faster. The time frame and the rate of Titanic's sinking excludes such a scenario.

EYEWITNESSES:

While a small handful of people said that the bow rose up, most did not. Even most of those who testified to the ship breaking apart did not see the bow rise.

When it comes to the eyewitnesses, there was obviously some conflicting recollections of the sinking. However, we need to remember that VANTAGE is very important in this. Why?

Someone in a lifeboat or in the water is viewing the sinking from sea level. Some lifeboats are on the port and some of them are on the starboard side. Some lifeboats went forward and some went aft. Most were not far enough away to see the entire ship. Many people in the lifeboats are not looking back at the ship (because of the positioning of the seats). Some would turn look, turn back and then turn and look again. It is very plausible that wreckage and debris might look like the ship.

Someone still on the boat itself is at a particular spot on the boat. They do not see the "big picture" of the sinking. As the ship listed to port, the starboard side would seem to rise up out of the water. Thus, those in the water might have "seen" Titanic rise.

Don't forget that many people were in something of a shock and "fog of war" trauma. Others may have had their "recollection" influenced by what others had seen. The questionable reliability of eyewitnesses is better understood in certain scenarios today. Consider suspects named by eyewitnesses only to be exonerated by DNA or verified alibis. Remember "hands up, don't shoot" eyewitnesses in Ferguson, Missouri?

TIMELINE:

There is a well-established timeline for the sinking. This includes what different people did at different times in the course of the night -- including when lifeboats were released. The ship itself stayed afloat for a remarkable amount of time too. A hull breach in the middle of the ship would not allow that to happen. Titanic sank in 2 hours and 40 minutes. By the time the ship is accepted to have broken apart, the bow was almost completely underwater. The timeline (and rate) of the sinking wouldn't make sense if the ship broke apart earlier. Moreover, there just wasn't enough buoyancy to make the bow rise. It is scientifically impossible.

WRECKAGE:

The remains of Titanic coincides with the commonly held belief about how the ship when down. The 2012 sinking theory by National Geographic and James Cameron -- particularly in terms of what happened after each ship went underwater -- coincides with everything we know about the remains of Titanic on the ocean floor.

CONCLUSION:

The V theory -- based upon just a few eyewitnesses -- just isn't plausible. Moreover, most advocates of this theory base their assumptions upon the drawings of Jack Thayer. Yet, in reality, Jack Thayer did not actually "see" the sinking from the perspective of the drawings.

Thayer and his friend jumped off the starboard side of Titanic amidship. He landed in the water, was nearly crushed by the second funnel, was shocked by the wave caused by that funnel before luckily feeling the overturned Collapsible B. He stated that he was helped up on it and was facing the ship.

Collapsible B had to be close enough to Titanic for all of this to happen. After all, after the breakup, he stated that the stern corkscrewed around to the point that the propellers were nearly above them (*and they feared that it would come crashing down on them).

Jack Thayer certainly witnessed the breakup. However, it was from this perspective at sea-level. He was never at a vantage point depicted in those drawings.

Now, I think that the perspective of Jack (according to his own testimony) might give a better image of what he saw. He was on the starboard side when the ship broke apart.

By most estimates, the ship took a sudden list to port. The list was sudden and violent enough to cause bodies on the stern to "pile up" (according to testimony of individuals like Charles Joughlin and others). That indicates not only a "yank" of the bow downward but a list to port dramatic enough to cause hundreds to lose their balance toward the same general direction.

To a person in the water on the starboard side, the sudden "yanked" notable list to port would seem to have made the ship "rise" (at least on the starboard side). This is especially true at the moment of the breakup (particularly if Collapsible B had drifted toward the aft of the ship (still on the starboard side). So, the angle of perspective of Thayer would have been from a vantage point at sea level and drifting slightly toward the rear of Titanic.
 
I

Ioannis Georgiou

Member
The V theory -- based upon just a few eyewitnesses -- just isn't plausible. Moreover, most advocates of this theory base their assumptions upon the drawings of Jack Thayer. Yet, in reality, Jack Thayer did not actually "see" the sinking from the perspective of the drawings.

Jack Thayer certainly witnessed the breakup. However, it was from this perspective at sea-level. He was never at a vantage point depicted in those drawings.

Now, I think that the perspective of Jack (according to his own testimony) might give a better image of what he saw. He was on the starboard side when the ship broke apart.

To a person in the water on the starboard side, the sudden "yanked" notable list to port would seem to have made the ship "rise" (at least on the starboard side). This is especially true at the moment of the breakup (particularly if Collapsible B had drifted toward the aft of the ship (still on the starboard side). So, the angle of perspective of Thayer would have been from a vantage point at sea level and drifting slightly toward the rear of Titanic.


Some newspapers had Thayers name mentioned to be the source of the drawings, which were actually done by Carpathia passenger Skidmore (his signature is on the bottom right). Thayer never mentioned the bow rising, be it in the 1912 newspaper accounts or the letter to the parents of Long, nor in the 1940 book.
The picture with the bow up might have been only an artistic way to show the ship breaking.
 
chrismireya

chrismireya

Member
Some newspapers had Thayers name mentioned to be the source of the drawings, which were actually done by Carpathia passenger Skidmore (his signature is on the bottom right). Thayer never mentioned the bow rising, be it in the 1912 newspaper accounts or the letter to the parents of Long, nor in the 1940 book.
The picture with the bow up might have been only an artistic way to show the ship breaking.

Good points. I'd add that others on Collapsible B didn't even see the breakup happen (let alone the bow rising). In terms of location, everyone on Collapsible B should have seen the bow rise, but only one (Thayer) has had any tie to that theory (and, as you point out, only from a drawing made by someone else).
 
Dan Kappes

Dan Kappes

Member
Interestingly, the American painter Alton Tobey painted a picture of the Titanic breaking in two with the bow surfacing based on the Skidmore drawing for Volume 7 of the 1963 children's book series The Golden Book History of the United States.

I wonder why Alton Tobey chose to paint a picture based on the Skidmore drawing, as most people believed before the wreck was found in 1985 that she went down intact.

Here is a photo of the painting in the book. I have also posted this same photo on previous threads on this website about the Skidmore drawing and the V break theory.
Titanic tobey jpg
 
P

Peter J. Spielvogel

Member
Here's a thought that occurs to me. If you have the weight of the flooded bow section cantilevering the stern upwards, when the keel fails and lets go, is it possible that the change in the Center of Gravity could cause a sudden forward rotation of the bow section?

In other words, keel section fails amidships, bow and stern are now functioning as two separate boats precipitously connected by shell plating around C-B deck level (if the Mengot "Hinge" theory is right) and the forces of gravity acting on the bow section shift dramatically. Suddenly the weight of the stern section is off its back and the CoG shifts forward in the bow section, causing a rotation where the flooded nose plunges and the semi-dry midships section snaps upwards, giving the illusion of the bow section rising as a whole.
 
chrismireya

chrismireya

Member
Hi Dan,

Interestingly, the American painter Alton Tobey painted a picture of the Titanic breaking in two with the bow surfacing based on the Skidmore drawing for Volume 7 of the 1963 children's book series The Golden Book History of the United States.

I wonder why Alton Tobey chose to paint a picture based on the Skidmore drawing, as most people believed before the wreck was found in 1985 that she went down intact.

I think that this belief (about the sinking) was true of the general public. However, there were Titanic researchers who believed that the great ship broke apart -- primarily because of the large number of survivors who were adamant that it did. Obviously, the wreckage would be vital for making a definitive statement. My guess is that this painter, Alton Tobey, probably based his painting from either the Skidmore drawing or a particular set of eyewitness accounts.

Here is a photo of the painting in the book. I have also posted this same photo on previous threads on this website about the Skidmore drawing and the V break theory.
Titanic tobey jpg

This is definitely interesting; however, this was painted by someone who was not a survivor or even related to a survivor. Obviously, the iceberg wasn't THAT tall or long. It also wasn't sitting beside Titanic while she sank either. Like most images of the sinking, it was just a visual interpretation by an artist. Here is a good video that someone else (Kyle Naber) posted in a different thread:

 
Kyle Naber

Kyle Naber

Member
However, there were Titanic researchers who believed that the great ship broke apart -- primarily because of the large number of survivors who were adamant that it did.

If I recall correctly, I think Walter Lord has believed that the ship broke apart, but he chose not to include it in his book because he didn’t want to ruin the image of the ship. I think it was the Countess of Rothes who had privately discussed with him about the ship breaking apart. I could be completely wrong here though.
 
Dan Kappes

Dan Kappes

Member
If I recall correctly, I think Walter Lord has believed that the ship broke apart, but he chose not to include it in his book because he didn’t want to ruin the image of the ship. I think it was the Countess of Rothes who had privately discussed with him about the ship breaking apart. I could be completely wrong here though.
Walter Lord didn't mention the breakup in his 1955 book A Night to Remember, but he does mention the stern settling back, which happened after the breakup.

After the wreck was found, Lord published another book called The Night Lives On in which he does mention that he talked with quite a few survivors who said the ship did split in half. They were proven right when the wreck was found, so that's probably why he mentioned the breakup in his new book and not the original one because in 1955 it was still just a theory. 30 years later, the theory proved true.
 
Top