Joshua Fischer
Member
This is a series on discovery channel where they do different sensational things and go in depth about them. What are your thoughts on the titanic episode? Are the stories that they tell legitamete?
Curiosity Titanic
- Thread starter Joshua Fischer
- Start date
Hello Joshua,
That's not much to go on. Do you have any other information, as to the title of this show, when it airs, etc?
That's not much to go on. Do you have any other information, as to the title of this show, when it airs, etc?
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Has there been a Titanic episode on Mythbusters? ;-) <<
Not specifically although they did test the myth of a ship creating suction as she sinks using an old worn out boat they called Mythtanic.
Not specifically although they did test the myth of a ship creating suction as she sinks using an old worn out boat they called Mythtanic.
Joshua Fischer
Member
Here is more information on it:
http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/materials-science/what-sank-titanic-episode.htm
http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/materials-science/what-sank-titanic-episode.htm
J Kent Layton
Member
Much of what was contained in this documentary was badly-researched and/or just plain wrong. I was appalled by its content. I left a rather detailed review for this documentary at the IMDB, but for the aid of those interested on this board, I'll post that review below:
>>Beginning of Quoted Review:
I was quite enthused to see this particular production, as it seemed to be coming at the story of the Titanic from a fresh direction. Sadly, as someone who has researched the history of this ship for thirty years, I was dumbfounded by the glaring historical errors it contained. Here are just a few of the mistakes I spotted, among many:
1. Thomas Andrews is reported to have told Captain Smith that the difference between Titanic's gross registered tonnage (46,329) and her displacement (52,310) as the '6,000 tons that keeps Titanic afloat.' This is a glaring technical error. GRT was actually a measurement of interior volume, not weight, and had nothing to do with the ship's flotation or balance. The two things are wholly unrelated.
2. Elizabeth Dowdell is portrayed as being in a bathtub at the time of the collision. According to her own accounts, she was in her cabin preparing for bed at the time. None of her accounts refer to being trapped under water; rather, she reached the deck without any serious incident and left in Boat No. 13.
3. Berthe Antonine Mayné (Madame de Villiers) left the ship in Boat No. 6. She was persuaded not to return to her cabin to retrieve her personal items by Margaret Brown.
4. The crewman stuck in the aft shaft tunnel. According to Greaser Frederick Scott, there was another greaser caught in the aft tunnel behind a watertight door. However, he did not mention that the man was injured in any way. There were escape hatches for the men to leave the shaft tunnels, should the doors have been closed with them inside. A second-hand newspaper account by Bedroom Steward Theissinger mentioned that "an engineer" had his leg caught in a watertight door in the Engine Room, and that he "begged to be shot to end his agony." Theissinger said: "His wish was complied with." However, the account is second-hand, and other details of Theissinger's account are suspect. There does not seem to be any supporting first-hand evidence of this entire storyline.
5. Water is portrayed as having reached C Deck far too early.
6. The ship's lights above the water were reported to have burned steadily, even under water. In this documentary, lights were portrayed as flickering and extinguishing even while above water.
7. Fourth Officer Boxhall is portrayed as sporting a full beard. He, Lightoller and Lowe were all clean-shaven; Third Officer Pitman sported a neatly trimmed mustache.
8. Bruce Ismay is portrayed as intimidating Captain Smith and Chief Engineer Bell into moving the ship forward after the collision. While the ship's engines were engaged again for a very short time, the evidence indicates that they were probably rung off for good by about the time that Ismay first arrived on the Bridge. Ismay never appears to have gone to the Engine Room, actually meeting bell at the top of the Grand Staircase. Also, there is no reason to think that Captain Smith moved the ship after the collision under Ismay's pressure.
9. Jack Thayer (John B. Thayer, Jr.) was not sharing a stateroom with his parents; they were in adjoining cabins. Jack had only just bid his mother good night, and had not yet climbed into bed at the time of the accident.
10. Fred Barrett clearly stated in his testimony at the British Inquiry that the actual stokehold of Boiler Room No. 5 was dry until the rush of water. This show gives the impression that No. 5 was partially flooded before the rush of water.
There are others, but even this short list should help to show that not everything (or perhaps even much) in this documentary should be believed without researching the matter further.
Now, a note about something interesting in the documentary: Someone portrayed First Officer Murdoch as ringing "Stop" on the Engine Room telegraphs during the evasive action. According to almost everyone except Fourth Officer Boxhall, this is the actual order he rang down on the telegraph at the time. At least this shows that someone was doing some digging on the matter.
In all, this documentary had many errors, and could have been much better. Very disappointing.
<< End of Quoted Review.
>>Beginning of Quoted Review:
I was quite enthused to see this particular production, as it seemed to be coming at the story of the Titanic from a fresh direction. Sadly, as someone who has researched the history of this ship for thirty years, I was dumbfounded by the glaring historical errors it contained. Here are just a few of the mistakes I spotted, among many:
1. Thomas Andrews is reported to have told Captain Smith that the difference between Titanic's gross registered tonnage (46,329) and her displacement (52,310) as the '6,000 tons that keeps Titanic afloat.' This is a glaring technical error. GRT was actually a measurement of interior volume, not weight, and had nothing to do with the ship's flotation or balance. The two things are wholly unrelated.
2. Elizabeth Dowdell is portrayed as being in a bathtub at the time of the collision. According to her own accounts, she was in her cabin preparing for bed at the time. None of her accounts refer to being trapped under water; rather, she reached the deck without any serious incident and left in Boat No. 13.
3. Berthe Antonine Mayné (Madame de Villiers) left the ship in Boat No. 6. She was persuaded not to return to her cabin to retrieve her personal items by Margaret Brown.
4. The crewman stuck in the aft shaft tunnel. According to Greaser Frederick Scott, there was another greaser caught in the aft tunnel behind a watertight door. However, he did not mention that the man was injured in any way. There were escape hatches for the men to leave the shaft tunnels, should the doors have been closed with them inside. A second-hand newspaper account by Bedroom Steward Theissinger mentioned that "an engineer" had his leg caught in a watertight door in the Engine Room, and that he "begged to be shot to end his agony." Theissinger said: "His wish was complied with." However, the account is second-hand, and other details of Theissinger's account are suspect. There does not seem to be any supporting first-hand evidence of this entire storyline.
5. Water is portrayed as having reached C Deck far too early.
6. The ship's lights above the water were reported to have burned steadily, even under water. In this documentary, lights were portrayed as flickering and extinguishing even while above water.
7. Fourth Officer Boxhall is portrayed as sporting a full beard. He, Lightoller and Lowe were all clean-shaven; Third Officer Pitman sported a neatly trimmed mustache.
8. Bruce Ismay is portrayed as intimidating Captain Smith and Chief Engineer Bell into moving the ship forward after the collision. While the ship's engines were engaged again for a very short time, the evidence indicates that they were probably rung off for good by about the time that Ismay first arrived on the Bridge. Ismay never appears to have gone to the Engine Room, actually meeting bell at the top of the Grand Staircase. Also, there is no reason to think that Captain Smith moved the ship after the collision under Ismay's pressure.
9. Jack Thayer (John B. Thayer, Jr.) was not sharing a stateroom with his parents; they were in adjoining cabins. Jack had only just bid his mother good night, and had not yet climbed into bed at the time of the accident.
10. Fred Barrett clearly stated in his testimony at the British Inquiry that the actual stokehold of Boiler Room No. 5 was dry until the rush of water. This show gives the impression that No. 5 was partially flooded before the rush of water.
There are others, but even this short list should help to show that not everything (or perhaps even much) in this documentary should be believed without researching the matter further.
Now, a note about something interesting in the documentary: Someone portrayed First Officer Murdoch as ringing "Stop" on the Engine Room telegraphs during the evasive action. According to almost everyone except Fourth Officer Boxhall, this is the actual order he rang down on the telegraph at the time. At least this shows that someone was doing some digging on the matter.
In all, this documentary had many errors, and could have been much better. Very disappointing.
<< End of Quoted Review.
Thank you for your detailed comment! This is certainly one of my pet peeves. I noticed several of these discrepancies when I watched the documentary (twice). I have found similar errors in articles right here on Encyclopedia Titanica. With all the information about the Titanic available there's no excuse for the errors.
Michael H. Standart
Member
Thanks for that review, Kent. It never ceases to amaze me that the people who put these things together don't bother to do even the most basic research. Since I can pull up the inquiry transcripts...always the best starting point...with just a few clicks of the mouse, this is an offence against history for which there can be no excuse.
I think in the people that write articles here on ET are happy have errors of fact pointed out. Often though they are matter of interpretation rather than simple fact.
However I'm always happy to forward corrections them on to the relevant author. Just e-mail [email protected]
However I'm always happy to forward corrections them on to the relevant author. Just e-mail [email protected]
J Kent Layton
Member
I agree entirely, Michael. And I must point out that I hate to criticize anyone's work; I couldn't even find out who had been tapped for historical research on this program. It's just that the historical record is so important to preserve, and good information is so readily available to researchers these days, that such glaring factual errors - not even interpretations of evidence - are entirely inexcusable.
As you say, Philip, it is nice when people who contribute to the historical record are happy to have factual errors pointed out to them. While there is definitely some room for interpretation where survivors were unclear or contradicted themselves in other accounts, or where they contradicted the evidence from other survivors, where facts are clear they need to be outlined as such. Speculation or interpretation should also be outlined as such.
Take care, everyone. I hope the review of this television program helped!
As you say, Philip, it is nice when people who contribute to the historical record are happy to have factual errors pointed out to them. While there is definitely some room for interpretation where survivors were unclear or contradicted themselves in other accounts, or where they contradicted the evidence from other survivors, where facts are clear they need to be outlined as such. Speculation or interpretation should also be outlined as such.
Take care, everyone. I hope the review of this television program helped!
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>As you say, Philip, it is nice when people who contribute to the historical record are happy to have factual errors pointed out to them.<<
Not only are they happy to have them pointed out, all the top researchers I've dealt with actively seek input on their work so they can make corrections either before publication or to update any new/revised editions.
Not only are they happy to have them pointed out, all the top researchers I've dealt with actively seek input on their work so they can make corrections either before publication or to update any new/revised editions.
James Martindale
Member
>>I hope the review of this television program helped!<<
Indeed. I never caught this when it premiered (thank God), and since I now know what was shown, I can give it a berth wider than the slipways Olympic and Titanic were built in.
The TRMA also mentioned this show in a thread. I've taken a look at it (the thread) and it shows a CGI screen grab of Titanic's rudder and screws. The center screw was shown with three blades. Either its a fluke or someone on the production team must have read Mark Chirnside's propeller article.
I'm posting a link for those who want to see the image with their own eyes.
Indeed. I never caught this when it premiered (thank God), and since I now know what was shown, I can give it a berth wider than the slipways Olympic and Titanic were built in.
The TRMA also mentioned this show in a thread. I've taken a look at it (the thread) and it shows a CGI screen grab of Titanic's rudder and screws. The center screw was shown with three blades. Either its a fluke or someone on the production team must have read Mark Chirnside's propeller article.
I'm posting a link for those who want to see the image with their own eyes.
Robert Peloski
Member
This is the first documentary I've seen that doesn't do the typical "hard a starboard reverse the engines *smash*" They attempted to discuss the rest of the porting around maneuver.
It is also the first one I've seen that makes mention of the possible restarting of the engines.
Those parts I liked. I could have done without some of the extra tv drama they added between some of the characters.
It is also the first one I've seen that makes mention of the possible restarting of the engines.
Those parts I liked. I could have done without some of the extra tv drama they added between some of the characters.
George L. Lorton
Member
I saw the preview for this program and thought I would tell everyone that it was on, but I missed it. Seems I did not miss much anyways.
Has there been any good programs on TV about the Titanic recently that were well researched and presented that are worth recommending? I've been working or playing Skyrim so I am out of the loop of what has been on the TV in regards to Titanic.
Has there been any good programs on TV about the Titanic recently that were well researched and presented that are worth recommending? I've been working or playing Skyrim so I am out of the loop of what has been on the TV in regards to Titanic.
J Kent Layton
Member
Mr. Peloski,
How are you? I agree with you in my review that their portrayal of the evasive action is a tremendous improvement over previous showings.
We do know that the ship's engines were re-started. However, from available evidence it is clear that those who produced the show were critically mistaken about the length of time the engines were run and when, and also the reasons behind it. This show was one of the most factually incorrect portrayals of Ismay's involvement after the collision that I have ever seen.
We had to do a lot of research for On A Sea of Glass on just when the engines were re-started, and for how long. The evidence on this point is - surprisingly - nearly unanimous, and it led us to some very interesting new finds. Hopefully the publication will help to erase some of the erroneous concepts included in this documentary, which had no real basis in fact, and at times went against all available evidence.
George,
I thoroughly enjoyed the recent documentary where the team went in and tried to re-create certain elements of the ship. I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head; I've heard that the UK version was in multiple parts, and that the US broadcast was tremendously cut in length, but I still liked it. Something very fresh and engaging.
Take care, guys!
How are you? I agree with you in my review that their portrayal of the evasive action is a tremendous improvement over previous showings.
We do know that the ship's engines were re-started. However, from available evidence it is clear that those who produced the show were critically mistaken about the length of time the engines were run and when, and also the reasons behind it. This show was one of the most factually incorrect portrayals of Ismay's involvement after the collision that I have ever seen.
We had to do a lot of research for On A Sea of Glass on just when the engines were re-started, and for how long. The evidence on this point is - surprisingly - nearly unanimous, and it led us to some very interesting new finds. Hopefully the publication will help to erase some of the erroneous concepts included in this documentary, which had no real basis in fact, and at times went against all available evidence.
George,
I thoroughly enjoyed the recent documentary where the team went in and tried to re-create certain elements of the ship. I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head; I've heard that the UK version was in multiple parts, and that the US broadcast was tremendously cut in length, but I still liked it. Something very fresh and engaging.
Take care, guys!
Similar threads
