Just a couple of well more then a couple of questions


Kevin Perez

Member
Jul 10, 2005
90
0
86
Hi there! It has been a long time since I visited this site, go to be back. Anyways, I simply wanted to ask these questions because many of the things that went on the ship are very unclear to me ...

1) Did Titanic ever list when water poured in it? If so, why didn't passengers seen this as a warning that ship was sinking and did it also list on its other side too?

2) How did the funnels fall off, and what time did the bow go down?

3) Did the ship break into three pieces after all, or just two?

4) When the stern split from the bow, did the funnel come off, did the stern go to where the front part was? Was there a fire? Did the stern list on its side causing hundreds of passengers to fall into the icy water? Was it exactly verticle when it sank too?

(even it it has nothing to with the topic, here it goes anyways)

5) Did any of you find the sinking of Titanic in James Cameron's movie very disturbing? Those scenes where very violent and indeed nothing to laugh about? What do you think?

I'm so sorry if what I'm asking seems so much, but I'm very curious to know all this. Oh, by the way, some of you may not remember be, but I was ''Kevin Zeniel Perez'' when I first came into the boards.

happy.gif
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,655
582
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Did Titanic ever list when water poured in it?<<

At times, yes. Not to any dramatic degree but enough during the night that it caused problems with loading and launching some of the boats. For the most part, the ship sank on a reletively even trim in that she didn't list that much at all. That makes her something of an odd man out in shipping casualties.

>>If so, why didn't passengers seen this as a warning that ship was sinking and did it also list on its other side too?<<

Wishful thinking, self-deception, perhaps just plain disbeleif that anything so big could ever sink. The potential list is endless and it's not possible to know in all instances why some chose to remain and some chose not to.

>>How did the funnels fall off,<<

Funnel one was apparently undermined when the superstructure flexed enough to cause the cables supporting it to break as the ship began her final plinge.

>> and what time did the bow go down?<<

If I recall correctly, the bow was completely submerged sometime after two am.

>>Did the ship break into three pieces after all, or just two? <<

You might want to click on This Hotlink for a blow by blow forensics explaination of what happened. Apparently, the ship didn't break so much as the midsection collapsed causing the bow and stern to seperate, with a lot of smaller pieces in between plunging to the bottom. This would include a substantial portion of the double bottom which broke away.
 
May 1, 2010
216
1
71
Michael, thanks for the link that was interesting.
BTW, does anyone know how many feet of "missing ship" there is between the bow and stern??

Yes, Cameron's depiction of the sinking was violent, although the real thing was more violent than that I'm sure. For whatever reason, the only thing that bothered me was that person hitting the propeller on the way down, I am not a big fan of carnage.

On a similar note, I have recently purchased a copy of Ken Marschall's "Death of Innocents" ....a painting of the Lusitania sinking that at a glance, looks like a photograph it is so perfect. If you look closely, you will see that it gives a very effective image of the event, without the blood and guts, although you know that carnage must be going on all over the place.

People who know nothing of shipwrecks have been over, seen it and been mesmerized by it which of course gives me the opportunity to TELL THEM ALL ABOUT IT!
 
J

Jeffrey Word

Guest
Steven, I'm with you on the person-hitting-propeller part. Though, more than likely, if the ship stood that far out of the water, that probably happened. Or someone hit the rudder. Who knows? When I was at the theater, people busted out laughing when that person hit the propeller. Well, there were a few "OOOHHH's" in the theater, but for the most part, laughing. Which, at that point in the movie I really did not appreciate. I didn't find it funny at all. And really, with all the scenes of people running up the decks, and flooding, etc that they deleted, I'd have much rather seen the propeller bit gone, and some wide exterior ship-shot take it's place. I've just never been a huge fan of that part. Although for dramatics, can see the reasoning behind the decision.

I'm also pretty much in agreement that even Cameron's depiction doesn't show half the violence and gore that probably really happened. At least all you saw was dummies falling and stacking on top of eachother. On the real thing, if a body fell into some of those cables THAT hard, they'd more than likely be ripped in half. Plus you know there were probably smashed bodies all around the front of the ship where the funnel fell on top of everybody. Remember that only about a third, maybe half, of a persons full body is visible in the water, IF they're wearing a life jacket. So some of those heads poking out of the water may have been missing arms, torsos, etc. With everything happening the way it did to certain parts of the ship, bodies were probably torn to shreds. John Jacob Astor's body was found in pretty bad shape a few days after the disaster. He looked like something huge had fallen on him and mangled his body. Anyway, I don't want to go too far into the gore that may or may not have been because honestly, it kind of disturbs me to think about it that deeply.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,655
582
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Which, at that point in the movie I really did not appreciate. I didn't find it funny at all.<<

Neither did I and I have a sense of humour that can be described...to put it mildly...as being pretty dark. Some thought Cameron's presentation to be too graphic, and there may be some merit to that as far as movie going audiences are concerned. I thought, if anything, it understated the real horror and violence of the event. Beyond that, the final plunge and the boat going through the frozen bodies was probably the most realistic and horrifying part of the film.

>> John Jacob Astor's body was found in pretty bad shape a few days after the disaster.<<

That's not quite accurate I'm afraid though a lot of popular histories assert this repeatedly. George Behe made short work of that one and if you wish to see read the fruits of his research, click on The Two Deaths of John Jacob Astor
 
W

Wayne Keen

Guest
There is a process by which something is said, and copied, and then copied again - and suddenly it becomes "most scholars agree".

It is even more prominent today, where you will hear folks say that they googled on a quote under question, found a bunch of websites that mention it, therefore it must be true.

Wayne
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,655
582
483
Easley South Carolina
Well, the nice thing about George's work is that he presents the origin of the tale (Col. Gracie who did not see J.J. Astor's body) and the primary sources. (The witnesses who knew J.J. Astor and who did see the body.}

Which one has more credibility?
 
W

Wayne Keen

Guest
Such as the difference between a historian and someone who likes a good story.

;)

Wayne
 

Similar threads

Similar threads