It's Parks Stephenson, not Stevenson.
Could the Bow Have Risen?
- Thread starter Kyle Naber
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bow
With 38,000 tons of water in her, I don't see how any part of the bow could have possibly risen. The bow was being pulled down by the enormous weight and completely submerged. It simply may have been due to the ship righting herself from the port list, just before she took the slight but definite plunge forward at 2:15 a.m. You do realize that Roger Long's theory was theorized before the missing middle section was found, do you not?
Ryan H
Member
I realised that the Roger Long theory was made before the missing middle section was found. Yeah, thanks for correcting that if there a way to improve it? I am making my own sinking theory on onlyoffice desktop editor which is a composite of Park Stephenson, Roger Long and 2017 James Cameron theories from the 20th anniversary NationalGeo documentary for the Final Plunge. Should I remove the Roger Long theory or keep it in but make some changes to it?
Last edited:
Kyle Naber
Member
It IS pretty outdated. Once the stern broke away from the bow, the bow would have dropped straight down. It’s possible that the middle section confused some onlookers, but the bow wouldn’t have been able to do anything but sink.
You're asking if there *is a way to improve it? By removing Mr. Long's theory all together. His theory does not fit with survivor accounts and as Kyle said, it is obsolete.
Ryan H
Member
So what should I replace Mr. Long theory with?
I would recommend taking a look at more recent sinking theories, put out by Titanic Animations and the authors of "On A Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss Of The RMS Titanic". These align more with survivor accounts:
Michael H. Standart
Member
Whatever any ACTUAL testing supports.
Keep in mind that in science, a theory is a well-tested and highly probably summary and explanation of observed fact.
We know for example that the Titanic's hull girder failed as she went down, hence the breakup.
Any theory which explains the how and why has to have some sort of objective testing data to back it up, BUT it's subject to revision and even being falsified by new testing and evidence.
Kyle Naber
Member
I’ve loved the OASOG animation since it came out. It accurately depicts the shower of sparks that many talked about, it shows the stern sitting horizontally for an appropriate amount of time (many thought it was going to float), and it shows the stern settling back as a gentle pace. The middle section collapsing also allows room for breakup area discrepancies among survivors and portrays the “middle” part that some in the boats mentioned during the break.
No, defys the laws of Physics
Similar threads
