Morning After: Where were the bodies?

A

Aaron_2016

Guest
From what I gather, the Titanic was greatly affected by the Gulf Stream. The Labrador current I understand met the Gulf and together they pushed everything on the surface towards the north east. The original exploration team believed the ship may have drifted as much as 4 miles on the surface before she sank. The bodies were found many miles to the northeast of the wreck. The large debris on the seafloor is scattered half a mile to the northeast. There is a large propeller blade about 3 miles southwest of the wreck (possibly from Titanic's starboard propeller which may have dropped during the collision). There is also a large path of coal almost a mile long southwest of the stern which according to a documentary could be an important clue which tells us how long the stern may have floated after the break. Put it all together and you get a line across the map which corresponds to a steady current pushing north east.

The map below shows us that researchers believed the Titanic could have drifted inside the larger circle up to a 4 mile radius before going down. She was in fact found just outside the circle. A large propeller blade was found inside. I think if we line up the path of the blade with the discovery of the wreck and the direction of the debris field we can see a good indication as to the direction the bodies had drifted. The map below isn't large enough to show, but the third dot is meant to represent the discovery of the bodies some 35 miles or thereabouts to the north east of the wreck.


Map Titanica



Gulfs



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
David G. Brown

David G. Brown

RIP
Interesting theory, but promulgated on a yet-unproven fact. Things are not always what they seem. That "propeller blade" has never been proven to be any sort of debris from a ship. Nor has it been proven to have come from Titanic. Until it can be identified without doubt as a blade from Hull #401 any ideas based on it have to remain in the realm of conjecture.

-- David G. Brown
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Is there a source for that?

The surveys to find the wreck were looking for a large intact ship and I think they would ignore any small signals like a half buried propeller blade and would not look closer at it because it would cost them valuable time and money which they probably did not have, and so they dismissed it as simply a 'rock'. I have seen the footage of the blade and it looks very much like a large propeller blade. Absolutely not a rock. There were many survivors who believed the Titanic had dropped a propeller blade and it is resting within the 4 mile radius of the wreck which the explorers believed the Titanic could have drifted before she sank. I think Ballard did not want to draw too much attention to the blade because it would mean Grimm had discovered part of the Titanic and would probably have demanded to be credited partly for the Titanic's discovery.


Propeller1


Propellermissing



.
 
R

robert warren

Member
I bought Jack Grimm's book back in 81 and even at the age of nine I thought that this object was not a rock.As we can clearly see in the above photo, one of the blades is missing.However, I do have couple of questions--how would the impact with the iceberg cause one of these blades to fall off ,secondly, how do we know how many people were trapped in the ship?I've got a feeling there were a lot more than 100. I tend to agree with Aaron, that if Grimm's discovery was legit, he would have shared credit for Titanic's discovery,and Ballard's star would not shine as brightly as it has.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I bought Jack Grimm's book back in 81 and even at the age of nine I thought that this object was not a rock. As we can clearly see in the above photo, one of the blades is missing. However, I do have couple of questions--how would the impact with the iceberg cause one of these blades to fall off ,secondly, how do we know how many people were trapped in the ship? I've got a feeling there were a lot more than 100. I tend to agree with Aaron, that if Grimm's discovery was legit, he would have shared credit for Titanic's discovery,and Ballard's star would not shine as brightly as it has.

We can only speculate as to how many people were still deep inside the ship. Survivor Frank Prentice said some of the passengers would not leave their cabins.

3rd class Steward John Hart was ordered to escort the passengers to the boat deck. He said:

"Those that were willing to go to the boat deck were shown the way. Some were not willing to go to the boat deck, and stayed behind. Some of them went to the boat deck, and found it rather cold, and saw the boats being lowered away, and thought themselves more secure on the ship, and consequently returned to their cabin. I heard two or three say they preferred to remain on the ship than be tossed about on the water like a cockle shell."

(He also handed out life jackets to the 3rd class passengers.)

"Some refused to put them on. They said they saw no occasion for putting them on. They did not believe the ship was hurt in any way."

Regarding to the lost propeller blade. The Olympic lost a blade '3' times in 1912 alone. Passengers who were on the Olympic described the same sensation as those on the Titanic. There were also Titanic survivors who were on the Olympic when she lost her blade and believed the same thing happened to the Titanic.

Here is a video I made about the lost blade and what the survivors believed happened.

Skip to 1.45




.
 
R

robert warren

Member
So basically, instead of a spur as depicted in all movies and assorted media,the iceberg had a long shelf. The Titanic ran over this according to survivor accounts. This would explain why fireman Barrett said he saw water coming up through the floor of the boiler room he was in.
 
I

Ioannis Georgiou

Member
Barrett said the water came from a damage about 2 feet over the stokehold plates he was standing.
 
PRR5406

PRR5406

Member
I don't understand how a prop blade could be loosened by grazing an iceberg. Jack Grimm invalidated his search by having a trained monkey jump on the ocean maps and allegedly point to the sinking location. My guess is the blade lays not too far behind the stern, buried in mud.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
They searched behind the stern and only found a long path of coal. The Olympic lost a blade 3 times in 1912. Newspapers said she struck a wreck but the official word from the company simply stated she had dropped a blade. I have been told that even an irregular turbulence of water could snap off a blade. When the Olympic lost her's the vibration caused some passengers to be roused from their sleep owing to the sudden vibration. They also felt a strange twisting movement of the ship. The same thing was felt on the Titanic. Some survivors even thought they were going full speed astern. Scarrott was at the bow and Rowe was at the stern and both mistakenly believed she was going full speed astern during and immediately after the collision. Other's felt the same and felt two distinct jars and a long vibration up to 20 seconds long as the ice slid underneath and broke into pieces. The accounts certainly suggest the ship had lost a blade. It would be remarkable if she didn't.


.
 
I

Ioannis Georgiou

Member
Aside what newspapers claimed Olympic lost only 1 time a blade in 1912. Because of that she had to return to Belfast which had the only dock where the ship could be placed and the blade replaced.
If she did lost a blade 2 more times, why is there no entry or gap between the voyages and that she returned to Belfast?
 
I

Ioannis Georgiou

Member
>>They searched behind the stern and only found a long path of coal.<<

They found a lot of debris to all sides of the stern.

Article 2112456 121615B0000005DC 326 964x617
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
>>They searched behind the stern and only found a long path of coal.<<

They found a lot of debris to all sides of the stern.

I meant they only found coal well to south of the stern. There was a documentary, I forget which, and they said there was a long path of coal that extended well to the south of the stern for a mile! Would be interested to see the photos they used as I assume they continued to search beyond a mile south in order to deduce that the coal was scattered down that far.


.
 
I

Ioannis Georgiou

Member
If I remember right they already followed the path of the coal in 1998 to the south. No large/heavy debris there. Can not remember if they had a look again later but in 2010 thy did.
Titanic At 100 Mystery Solved 720p HD full movie 2 2315
 
M

Mila

Senior Member
I wonder how may miles from the Gulf Stream the wreck site is. I know that the Gulf Stream is ever changing, but still there should be some indications of the time they passed the Gulf Stream.
 
Top