Chicken bones on the wreck


Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 29, 2005
57
0
156
I was reading ghosts and saw the refrence that when they were down at the ship that they stumbled across chicken bones and did not want to enter the wreck further due to the fact that they did not want to find human remains is that true?

Thnx in advance !!
 
Aug 29, 2005
57
0
156
I understand that I was just curious as to if this was true or not. The refrence is near the begining(sorry about spelling) of the book. It is written in a way that makes it seem like it was a real occurance and maybe after reading the refrence somebody can clarify. I will try to read the refrence and post it here when I do .
 
Aug 29, 2005
57
0
156
umm could someone update this with the link from exploration and salvage. The bones were actually real and were lamb bones. Thank You !!
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
29
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Hello Joshua,

Since the link has already been posted in that topic, it is not necessary to re-post it in here. If anyone is interested, all they have to do is to go to that very topic.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>The bones were actually real and were lamb bones.<<

Mmmmmmmmm...says who? Based on what? Given the acidic and calcium poor environment, it doesn't come across as being very likely that any organic remains would long survive down there.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
I see no reason why animal or chicken bones shouldn't be found on the wreck. As of 1998, the wreck was littered with ropes, nets and other debris from modern visitors to the wreck. Goodness knows what has since accumulated. Why not the remains of lunch?
 
Aug 29, 2005
57
0
156
Mmmmmmmmm...says who? Based on what?

Didn't they do testing on them and find them rich in calcium and find that they were lamb bones which was what the last meal on titanic was.

Why not the remains of lunch?

The reason that it was not "Lunch" was that it was found on the interior of the wreck not lying on a deck of the ocean floor !
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Didn't they do testing on them and find them rich in calcium and find that they were lamb bones which was what the last meal on titanic was.<<

Joshua, with all due respect, I didn't ask you that. You made a positive claim that real bones had been found and that they were lamb.

Who said that??? What is their basis for making that particular assertion? I'm quite willing to entertain the possibility that such remains could have been preserved, but I'm looking for proof that it has. It would be intriguing if it turns out to be true.
 

Jim Hathaway

Member
Dec 18, 2004
311
0
181
Just out of curiosity, I wonder what the conditions were on Titanic that caused the dissolution of bones and why bones aboard the CSS Hunley were still intact after longer immersion.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
The conditions in and around the Titanic is the acidic and calcium poor environment I described earlier. What helped with the Hunley was that the remains were encased in mud, which has often shown itself to be remarkably effective as a preservative. My bet is that if there are bones on the Titanic, they're deep inside and encased in mud.
 
Feb 24, 2004
907
3
183
Hi, Michael!

>>Who said that??? What is their basis for making that particular assertion? I'm quite willing to entertain the possibility that such remains could have been preserved, but I'm looking for proof that it has.

Pellegrino said it. In "Ghosts of the Titanic." I also remember reading it. But as many of us are already aware, "proof" isn't much of a deterrent to the amazing Dr. P, now is it?

Roy
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>But as many of us are already aware, "proof" isn't much of a deterrent to the amazing Dr. P, now is it?<<

That seems to be a well justified complaint. In fairness, he may not be wrong, but I'd like to see some independant corroberation.
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
My wife and I attended a lecture that Pellegrino held at St. Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri (I think that this was in 1998). During his slide show, he made reference to organic remains with this illustration:

A crew in the French submersible found the base of a soup tureen sticking out of the mud. They attached a suction cup and lifted it free from the bottom. Once in a collection basket and on the surface, conservators were washing the mud out with a fine spray of water.

Out pops fragments of china, a button or two, and a sock -- and an intact fried chicken thigh. (Don't shoot the messenger; I'm merely relating what I heard!)
He theorized that since the chicken thigh was encased in an oxygen-free (and presumably bacteria-free) area that it had not decomposed.

On screen he showed a slide of said chicken thigh in a plastic bag.

Comments?
 
Feb 21, 2005
671
7
183
Hi Tim! This interests me a lot.

I don't know much on this subject, but the only thing I would have to offer on the chicken thigh is maybe it had the benefit of being "protected" let's say, but most human remains wouldn't have that luxury. There weren't any people "contained" in anything, except maybe their cabins, which wouldn't offer much protection from the elements of the sea. The only scenario I can see that would offer any kind of protection from the elements for human remains would be if they were encased in a cave-in and literally *shoved* into the mud once the ship impacted with the bottom. (around the areas of the break-up maybe?) Really there's no other way that human remains could be protected. Dr. Ballard said in an interview that the average "snowfall" (sediment etc floating to the bottom) is 1cm per 1,000 years. Based on Ballard's words, there's no way that a body could be buried in the mud in 90+ years. The only other thing I could see would be what may be under that 3rd piece (the hull bottom recently put on the map, which is upside-down.) Who knows what might be under that? Maybe nothing.

Not sure if this post really added anything to the conversation or not. I'm worn out from a long day and my wheels are just turning on this subject. Rusty wheels at that!
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>On screen he showed a slide of said chicken thigh in a plastic bag.<<

Fair enough. If it was there, then it was there. While I'm still inclined to be cautious with it, Dr. Pellegrino isn't inclined towards perpetrating hoaxes. (Which doesn't mean that somebody else might not try it at his expence, but that's another kettle of fish.) Right or wrong, he's an honest guy.
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
By the way -- I checked my notes, in this case a clipping stuck into a first edition of "Her Name, Titanic" that I had taken to be autographed -- and the date of the lecture was 14 April 1998.

I saw the article in the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch" that morning, and my wife and I drove the 3 1/2 hours to St. Louis that evening!
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,214
532
188
16
Maryland, USA
I understand that I was just curious as to if this was true or not. The refrence is near the begining(sorry about spelling) of the book. It is written in a way that makes it seem like it was a real occurance and maybe after reading the refrence somebody can clarify. I will try to read the refrence and post it here when I do .
Yes, it is true, it is mentioned by George Tulloch and Roy Cullimore. If this was false, they would dispute the claim.

Slight add on: the bones were discovered in a battered soup tureen in ‘96. There were multiple layers, and in one there lay the lamb bones. Ultimately, George Tulloch placed a moratorium around that area of the stern, in case there were more bones to be find
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads