Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
However, the prevailing conditions i.e. the fact that she was under her own power makes no difference. It is what happened to the bow section relative to the stern setion after they part company that matters.

Of course it makes a difference. It is still unclear when exactly the Edmund Fitzgerald broke apart. It has been suggest that the bow hit the bottom while the stern was still outside the water causing the ship to break. Even if that was not the case the weather conditions are not the same as when Titanic sunk.
It's like comparing apples with pears in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,127
477
158
16
Maryland, USA
I am very much aware of the Edmund Fitzgerald case and the considerable controvasy that still surrounds it. However, the prevailing conditions i.e. the fact that she was under her own power makes no difference. It is what happened to the bow section relative to the stern setion after they part company that matters.
Similarly, neither the bow or stern sections of the Titanic would behave as they did on the suface. The popular belief is that the bow of Titanic went down more or less without changing direction and that the stern section gyrated due to lack of slick hydrodynamic shape. That is pure nonsence.
Only if the bow section sank vertically and the mass behind the bow was uniforn on each side would here have been a slim chance of her doing so. A flighted arrow maintains its direction in air, try firing one vertically downard into a deep water tank.
Here is a little sketch showing you what I am trying to get over.View attachment 74779
The bow pointing northward on the sea bed is simply another "eurika" moment which is designed to provide proof where there is none...i.e. that Titanic turned North after she hit the berg. However, the promoters of such an idea forgot two simple things which are:
1. How was it possible for a ship with an inefficient rudder and rapidly losing power, to beable to turn into a 1.2+knot south setting current ? And.
2. Presuming this mythical current was running deep (which it should have been if it was cold). what effect would a sideways force have had on an irregular shaped object sinking through its layers?

By the way. these considerations also apply to the stern section. Which I believe went open end down, stabalised on a level keel due to the engines and went flat-footed down thereafter and did not gyrate. That is a nother "fit" to explain the nothward turn.

Have fun.
I have more of an issue with your Stern claim. The Stern did rotate, evident by the smear on the 2010 Sonar map. And, the Stern corkscrewing is why large amounts of debris lie everywhere. For example, the forward tower is closer to the Bow then the Aft tower. Finally, part of the Stern's appearance is because of impact. The aft end of Stern wouldn't be twisted and the keel broken by, what, 10-15 degrees. Would there be enough energy for a deck-pancaking smash into the seabed if her Stern fell "flat footed"?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
This is really a side issue to the break up, but since you gave such a dogmatic answer, Sam, it deserves a rebuke.
However, just incase of over-enthusiasm from another quarter ;) I would point out that the following response may also be of interest to new members and most definitely to Cam., so here goes:
5th Officer Lowe completely demolished the swinging bow nonsense when he described seeing a ship on the port bow showing a red light and two white lights. He in fact, corroborated Boxhall's story of a moving ship which, if it had kept going in its original direction, would have passed down Titanic's port side. Lowe was describing relative motion...the relative motion between a moving ship and a stationary one.
. QM Rowe seems to have been doing the same thing although how he managed to do that is a mystery since the light was on the port bow and nowhere near the stern as a reference point. He used the cardinal points due North and South . How on earth was he, a man who was stationed aft and did not arrive on the bridge until long after the mystery vessel was sighted, able to give such precise directions without a compass? He never saw a red light, how was that possible if both Boxhall and Lowe and others saw one?
Going by the time evidence given by Rowe's watch which If I remember correctly you agree was about 1 hour 38 minutes FAST of EST, Rowe arrived on the bridge just before 11-07pm EST, that's about 30 minutes after Boxhall first sighted the mast head lights ahead half a point on the port bow.
Yet, when Rowe arrived on the fore bridge 30 minutes later , he claimed that at that time, the bearing of the other vessel from Titanic was still half a point on the port bow, but subsequently changed 1. 5 points (about17 degrees) during the next 40 minutes until about 11-47 pm EST. This equates to a change of about 0.4 degrees per minute. No one had any time to stand around and observe this. However, Rowe had corroborated every single witness who saw that vessel after she showed a white light, and that was that she was between 5 and 6 miles away when she did so.

I have a question for your, Sam. :
1: Do you seriously wish everyone to believe that not one single member of Titanic's deck department was capable of assessing the approximate distance of a light at night? Really?

I suggest you conduct a simple experiment assuming that

A The Navigating Officers were not totally useless and could tell how a ship was heading and what a moving vessel at night looked like,
B Those seamen who described a white light distant 5 or 6 miles knew what they were talking about.
C: The vessel seen by Boxhall was 12 miles away when he first saw it.
D: Titanic's bow was returned on the original course by Smith ready to continue the voyage after an all clear report .

Humour me

If you make a scale plot using the evidence, you will discover that Boxhall saw a 12 knot vessel approaching on course of 095True which, if she had maintained her course, would have caused her to pass clear to port of Titanic.

The following is a little sketch I developed for inclusion in my next book. It is to scale and uses eye witness evidence.

Mysterious encounter 1.jpg

Further, I suggest that the approaching vessel was on a reciprocal course when she spotted Titanic's lights and obeyed the Rule of The Road No.18 covering vessels meeting end-on or nearly end on.

By the way, as you know, No.8 boat was the first one to be launched on the port side at or near to 10-55 pm EST - 30 + minutes after Boxhall first saw his masthead lights. The occupants of that boat all witnessed the moment the mystery vessel first met the ice. They saw her point directly at them then show her red port light before finally showing her white stern light to everyone. Check it out yourself. No less that three survivors in that boat saw the mystery vessel's red, port side light. If they did , then they were no farther away from that vessel than 7 or 8 miles. Incidentally, at about the time 8 was being launched, your star witness, 5th Officer Lowe was round at Emergency Cutter 1 preparing her for launch. As he was doing so:
"15825. Did you look for any lights at this time at all?
- As I was getting the emergency boat ready, No. 1, Mr. Boxhall was firing the detonators, the distress signals, and somebody mentioned something about a ship on the port bow, and I glanced over in that direction casually and I saw a steamer there.
15826. What did you see of her? - I saw her two masthead and her red sidelights.


The above provides proof-positive given by no less than five individual survivors that it was a moving vessel that was seen from the sinking Titanic, not a stationary one.

What more proof do you or others need, Sam?

I won't hold my breath in the hope that you will agree that I am right this time. I know it's Christmas but....Never mind! enjoy the season and keep safe... that goes for all of my freinds and adversaries on this great site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,127
477
158
16
Maryland, USA
This is really a side issue to the break up, but since you gave such a dogmatic answer, Sam, it deserves a rebuke.
However, just incase of over-enthusiasm from another quarter ;) I would point out that the following response may also be of interest to new members and most definitely to Cam., so here goes:
5th Officer Lowe completely demolished the swinging bow nonsense when he described seeing a ship on the port bow showing a red light and two white lights. He in fact, corroborated Boxhall's story of a moving ship which, if it had kept going in its original direction, would have passed down Titanic's port side. Lowe was describing relative motion...the relative motion between a moving ship and a stationary one.
. QM Rowe seems to have been doing the same thing although how he managed to do that is a mystery since the light was on the port bow and nowhere near the stern as a reference point. He used the cardinal points due North and South . How on earth was he, a man who was stationed aft and did not arrive on the bridge until long after the mystery vessel was sighted, able to give such precise directions without a compass? He never saw a red light, how was that possible if both Boxhall and Lowe and others saw one?
Going by the time evidence given by Rowe's watch which If I remember correctly you agree was about 1 hour 38 minutes FAST of EST, Rowe arrived on the bridge just before 11-07pm EST, that's about 30 minutes after Boxhall first sighted the mast head lights ahead half a point on the port bow.
Yet, when Rowe arrived on the fore bridge 30 minutes later , he claimed that at that time, the bearing of the other vessel from Titanic was still half a point on the port bow, but subsequently changed 1. 5 points (about17 degrees) during the next 40 minutes until about 11-47 pm EST. This equates to a change of about 0.4 degrees per minute. No one had any time to stand around and observe this. However, Rowe had corroborated every single witness who saw that vessel after she showed a white light, and that was that she was between 5 and 6 miles away when she did so.

I have a question for your, Sam. :
1: Do you seriously wish everyone to believe that not one single member of Titanic's deck department was capable of assessing the approximate distance of a light at night? Really?

I suggest you conduct a simple experiment assuming that

A The Navigating Officers were not totally useless and could tell how a ship was heading and what a moving vessel at night looked like,
B Those seamen who described a white light distant 5 or 6 miles knew what they were talking about.
C: The vessel seen by Boxhall was 12 miles away when he first saw it.
D: Titanic's bow was returned on the original course by Smith ready to continue the voyage after an all clear report .

Humour me

If you make a scale plot using the evidence, you will discover that Boxhall saw a 12 knot vessel approaching on course of 095True which, if she had maintained her course, would have caused her to pass clear to port of Titanic.

The following is a little sketch I developed for inclusion in my next book. It is to scale and uses eye witness evidence.

View attachment 74822
Further, I suggest that the approaching vessel was on a reciprocal course when she spotted Titanic's lights and obeyed the Rule of The Road No.18 covering vessels meeting end-on or nearly end on.

By the way, as you know, No.8 boat was the first one to be launched on the port side at or near to 10-55 pm EST - 30 + minutes after Boxhall first saw his masthead lights. The occupants of that boat all witnessed the moment the mystery vessel first met the ice. They saw her point directly at them then show her red port light before finally showing her white stern light to everyone. Check it out yourself. No less that three survivors in that boat saw the mystery vessel's red, port side light. If they did , then they were no farther away from that vessel than 7 or 8 miles. Incidentally, at about the time 8 was being launched, your star witness, 5th Officer Lowe was round at Emergency Cutter 1 preparing her for launch. As he was doing so:
"15825. Did you look for any lights at this time at all?
- As I was getting the emergency boat ready, No. 1, Mr. Boxhall was firing the detonators, the distress signals, and somebody mentioned something about a ship on the port bow, and I glanced over in that direction casually and I saw a steamer there.
15826. What did you see of her? - I saw her two masthead and her red sidelights.


The above provides proof-positive given by no less than five individual survivors that it was a moving vessel that was seen from the sinking Titanic, not a stationary one.

What more proof do you or others need, Sam?

I won't hold my breath in the hope that you will agree that I am right this time. I know it's Christmas but....Never mind! enjoy the season and keep safe... that goes for all of my freinds and adversaries on this great site.
Thank you Jim, that was an excellent post. I agree, and Merry Christmas to you too :)
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I have more of an issue with your Stern claim. The Stern did rotate, evident by the smear on the 2010 Sonar map. And, the Stern corkscrewing is why large amounts of debris lie everywhere. For example, the forward tower is closer to the Bow then the Aft tower. Finally, part of the Stern's appearance is because of impact. The aft end of Stern wouldn't be twisted and the keel broken by, what, 10-15 degrees. Would there be enough energy for a deck-pancaking smash into the seabed if her Stern fell "flat footed"?
This one is for you, Cam. Study it then use your imagination.
Wreck Site.jpg

If you look at some of the photographs of the site, you will note what are known in the trade as "scour marks". These are sea bed currents. What effect do you think these might have had on descending light debris?
In addition, If there had been a 1 knot + current running in the direction of the stern section, how the heck did the bow (without engines) travel northward of the center of the debris area?
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,479
1,743
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
As I was putting over the starboard emergency boat somebody mentioned something about a ship on the port bow. I glanced in that direction and saw a steamer showing her red light about 5 miles to the northward of us.

At this time fourth officer Boxhall was firing off signals of distress, and we also Morsed to the ship by the electric Morse lamps on the bridge.

When I had got these boats tied together I still saw these in the same position, and shortly afterwards she seemed to alter her position and open her green. I knew a few minutes afterwards all the lights went out, and I did not see any more lights until I saw the lights of the Carpathia.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,127
477
158
16
Maryland, USA
This one is for you, Cam. Study it then use your imagination.
View attachment 74826
If you look at some of the photographs of the site, you will note what are known in the trade as "scour marks". These are sea bed currents. What effect do you think these might have had on descending light debris?
In addition, If there had been a 1 knot + current running in the direction of the stern section, how the heck did the bow (without engines) travel northward of the center of the debris area?
excellent map.
The Stern falling and your diagram doesn't explain the Stern falling flat footed, and the Stern's Aft end being twisted 10 degrees to starboard.
For the Bow, I bet, because of the Bow's curved Prow, it basically "sailed" through the water, either after levelling out, or before it levelled out?
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,127
477
158
16
Maryland, USA
Really? The ship broke almost 200 yards due east of the stern section, not halfway between the two major sections like our friend wants you to believe. The bow and stern sections are almost 1/2 mile apart.
Oh oops, great point!
Aren't they 1,970 feet apart or something?
So if they fell flat footed, how did they get that far apart, Jim?
 

James Luber

Member
Dec 22, 2020
6
6
3
Of course it makes a difference. It is still unclear when exactly the Edmund Fitzgerald broke apart. It has been suggest that the bow hit the bottom while the stern was still outside the water causing the ship to break. Even if that was not the case the weather conditions are not the same as when Titanic sunk.
It's like comparing apples with pears in this case.

I think what most likely happened was the Fitzgerald had hogged itself and the large waves left the middle of the ship unsupported. The same thing happened to the Pendleton and the Fort Mercer. We know that water was flooding the ship as McSorley stated she was listing to starboard. The ship would've gotten lower and lower in the water until the huge waves that were reported by the Arthur-Anderson struck her. There would've been so much weight on the ship and inside she would not have been able to come up. The water would've burst through the pilothouse quickly, explaining the lack of a distress signal. The bow hit the seafloor causing the middle of the ship to twist and bend as it broke in two. The stern twisted around, turning turtle as it sank. This would explain why the bow is upright and the stern is upside down, as well as the destroyed middle section.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
As I was putting over the starboard emergency boat somebody mentioned something about a ship on the port bow. I glanced in that direction and saw a steamer showing her red light about 5 miles to the northward of us.

At this time fourth officer Boxhall was firing off signals of distress, and we also Morsed to the ship by the electric Morse lamps on the bridge.

When I had got these boats tied together I still saw these in the same position, and shortly afterwards she seemed to alter her position and open her green. I knew a few minutes afterwards all the lights went out, and I did not see any more lights until I saw the lights of the Carpathia.
Your quote is from your undated transcription of a deposition allegedly given by Lowe to the British Consulate in New York before he returned back to the UK. That was at least 15 days after the event.
However, as you very well know, he gave much the same information regarding the sighting of a red light 3 weeks later at the UK Inquiry minus the expression "to the northward".
Never-the-less, there was a red light spotted to the northward. It was seen by AB Lucas
"15825. Did you look for any lights at this time at all?
- As I was getting the emergency boat ready, No. 1, Mr. Boxhall was firing the detonators, the distress signals, and somebody mentioned something about a ship on the port bow, and I glanced over in that direction casually and I saw a steamer there.
15826. What did you see of her?
- I saw her two masthead and her red sidelights."


Lucas didn't buy the turning north idea either, nor was he seeing the nearby vessel others saw.

1578. She lay pointing in the same direction?
- Yes.

"- It was about eight or nine miles; it was right on the horizon."

The Questioners and Lucas were using a model presenting Titanic's starboard side as a reference. This is what Lucas was describing:
Lucas;s northern light.jpg

Incidentally, Lowe must have had remarkable eyesight to do as he described. He was blinded by flashes from Boxhall's flares and the boat deck lights and accommodation lights would be ablaze, yet he had an almost super-human ability to adjust his eyes "briefly" to glance over the top of the bridge front dodger and see, through the space between foremast and rigging, the red light of a ship five miles away. That was "some kid"
Additionally, he had no idea how Titanic was heading at that time. He was late on deck, she was already down by the head. He went straight to the starboard side and worked on boats 7, 5, then 3, when the first signal was fired by Boxhall. Thereafter he went to Emergency Cutter 1 - a boat which was already deployed and uncovered, ready for loading

As for Lowe's remarks about opening both the red and green sidelights?
If he did see such a thing, he was but one of 4 who saw it but he wasn't talking about the boat seen by the other three.
Boxhall saw it from the bridge before he left in Boat 2. However, before he left, the mystery vessel had turned to starboard away from Titanic. First showed her red and green, then showed her red and finally showed a white stern light.
Steward George Crawford and the Countess of Rothes. in boat No.8 which was launched 5 minutes before Boat 3. also saw the same thing.
Lowe said he saw ta similar phenomenon from boat 14, therefore he did so between the times of the launching of his boat and 2. - a period of less than 20 minutes.
Now we have a problem here because the boat seen by the others turned to starboard, whereas, the boat seen by Lowe turned to port. Not only that, but Lowe said he saw this after he had rowed back and forth to the ships side collecting lifeboats and after he had tied at least three of them line astern. By that time, the vessel seen by Boxhall was showing a white light.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
excellent map.
The Stern falling and your diagram doesn't explain the Stern falling flat footed, and the Stern's Aft end being twisted 10 degrees to starboard.
For the Bow, I bet, because of the Bow's curved Prow, it basically "sailed" through the water, either after levelling out, or before it levelled out?
As I pointed out to you Cam, the bow was designed to cut evenly through water in the horizontal plane and would do so as lonf as the pressure on each side of it was equal. Once you turn it vertical, we have acompletely new ball game. More so if the bow is not pointing directly down because the surface at the greatest depth is subjected to the greatest pressure. likewise, the stern would land flat on the sea bed but would not keep the same attitude on the way down.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Really? The ship broke almost 200 yards due east of the stern section, not halfway between the two major sections like our friend wants you to believe. The bow and stern sections are almost 1/2 mile apart.

Can I get a loan of your weegie-board ,Sam? Where did the "ship broke almost 200 yards east of the stern section", come from?
The ship broke at the surface. None of us have any idea of exactly where that was relative to the sea be or the position of the debris.
No scientist can depict exactly how the two main parts of the ship descended to the bottom.
However if what you say is correct, then Titanic was heading west when she broke at the surface and the stern section descended westward and downward at an angle of 2 and 3/4 degrees, while, as I have said all along, the bow sheered downward and off to the right, landing up where it is today.
Think about it. If the bow was down and heeled over to port, the port bow surface would present more resistance then the starboard bow surface ..a bit like a bow rudder if you will.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,127
477
158
16
Maryland, USA
As I pointed out to you Cam, the bow was designed to cut evenly through water in the horizontal plane and would do so as lonf as the pressure on each side of it was equal. Once you turn it vertical, we have acompletely new ball game. More so if the bow is not pointing directly down because the surface at the greatest depth is subjected to the greatest pressure. likewise, the stern would land flat on the sea bed but would not keep the same attitude on the way down.
Why would the Stern stop rotating seconds before landing?
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,127
477
158
16
Maryland, USA
the bow sheered downward and off to the right, landing up where it is today.
Think about it. If the bow was down and heeled over to port, the port bow surface would present more resistance then the starboard bow surface ..a bit like a bow rudder if you will.
I agree with this part, as if the Boilers are the hypocenter, the Bow is not Dead ahead of the No. 1 Boiler Room boilers
 

Similar threads

Similar threads