Dave and Iain. Well, stap me vitals a squabble in the ready room! I don't know whether I feel flattered or insulted to be called 'sir'. But I'm sure we're all ready and waiting to slag off or praise whatever the author has to say, come November....Ooo aarrhh!
The main gist of his previous book is that the Titanic collided with floe ice, not an ice berg, and that the Titanic sank intact, and at a depth of a few hundred feet, capsized, was carried east by a 6 knot current (taking over two hours), before sinking to the bottom; the ship was broken in two by the 1929 underwater earthquake.
Re: The main gist of (Collin's) previous book is that the Titanic collided with floe ice, not an ice berg, and that the Titanic sank intact, and at a depth of a few hundred feet, capsized, was carried east by a 6 knot current (taking over two hours), before sinking to the bottom; the ship was broken in two by the 1929 underwater earthquake.
Interesting. I did not read his earlier book, but I am fascinated how he figured out all that.
Perhaps we can derive our own theories as well:
1. The Titanic was struck by the Loch Ness Monster (on Holiday from Scotland); and
2. The Titanic sank in a corkscrew maneuver; and
3. At a depth of a few hundred feet, the ship was seized by several thousand mermaids; and
4. Gently deposited on the bottom; and
5. The ship was broken in two, not by the 1929 underwater earthquake, but by the evil Sea Witch, Ursula.
All this obtained from "the vegetables of one of our member's family", aka the "Carrotts of Ben's Aunts" (and worse than that, I remember a derivation of that term used by a current UK MP, on a comedy/variety show, when she used to be an actress. Yes, I'm betraying my age).
Now we'll have to work on our theory about the "Dewski Traveler" & The Toronto Connection, both involving time travel.
>>The main gist of his previous book is that the Titanic collided with floe ice, not an ice berg, and that the Titanic sank intact, and at a depth of a few hundred feet, capsized, was carried east by a 6 knot current (taking over two hours), before sinking to the bottom; the ship was broken in two by the 1929 underwater earthquake.<<
And, I'm sure that he's going to say that Captain Smith actually had six legs, too, right?
What was the towering iceberg that many people claimed they saw rolling against the hull as it went by--a mass illusion? And I presume that the earthquake of '29 pulled the two pieces two-and-a-half miles apart, caused the funnels to float away, and compressed the decks together?
(although I do realize that the notion of the ship going down in one piece and breaking due to an earthquake is possibly a mocking joke from one of the contributors of this forum. I must admit that such a thought is funny!)
I usually do wait to read a book to make criticisms, but, in this case, criticism is already due--and not toward the book, but toward the theory, especially since there have been several eyewitness testimonies to verify the bleedin' 'berg and the break.
If the book is based on this premise, and I criticize the mere premise, then the I guess I criticize the book, too. Any book based on a disagreeable and unrealistic premise automatically deserves a skeptical reaction.
However, as Michael said, there may be some useful information about ice in the book. After all, the author is supposed to be an authority on ice. I respect that authority and will wait to read the book to see what he has to say. Regardless of his 'evidence,' though, I will not change my mind about the 'iceberg' premise--it's poppicock!
And that's being nice, hehe.
I'm not trying to be offensive or disrespectful; I'm just calling it the way I see it.
Another thing: for a book that claims to "solve the mystery," with 'startling new facts,' it's amusing how the cover painting could be so wrong. It was a pitch-black night--not light--and the decks of Titanic were not vacant of people, as the ship on this cover seems to show (although if I get a magnifying glass, I'm sure to find one or two people standing on deck). Before someone says, "but the image had to be made light so we can it," keep in mind that there are several books with a sinking Titanic on the front, and the background sky is black. I have absolutely no problem seeing the scene on those.
And, yes, I do realize that someone else did the artwork. It's just amusing how a 'factual' premise could be represented by a falsified cover-image.
I'm sorry for my snide remarks here. I just read Tennaro's comments regarding the promotional practices of publishers, and I agree that such an outburst is premature. Of course, it is just right to read the book before criticizing it. As it was for the others, I just reacted to the "mystery solved" and the "myth" of the collision with the iceberg.
As a creative writer, I understand the importance of not critiquing a work that is underdeveloped or unread. For me, it was just reading the premise of "no iceberg" that got me reeling. The way I saw it, no matter what reasoning he has will not change the fact that an iceberg did scrape the Titanic's hull and caused the inflow of water which subsequently sank her.
I mean no disrespect, nor was I trying to be close-minded. I will rightfully wait and read the book. I will not criticize the man's ideas until that time, but neither will I change my mind about the "no iceberg" theory.
>>For me, it was just reading the premise of "no iceberg" that got me reeling.<<
Well, in fairness, you're not the only one who's had exactly that reaction.
>>The way I saw it, no matter what reasoning he has will not change the fact that an iceberg did scrape the Titanic's hull and caused the inflow of water which subsequently sank her. <<
I agree. We've had some fairly heated discussions with "Duke" Collins on this in this in the tech folders. While I think on some level he may be onto something...there's really no reason pack ice couldn't have been drifting right along with the berg...there's no getting away from the fact that the witnesses who actually saw the accident go down very consistantly refer to an iceberg as being the culprit.
>>there's no getting away from the fact that the witnesses who actually saw the accident go down very consistently refer to an iceberg as being the culprit.<<
As you've read, that was one of my main points above. What was "Duke's" response to this testimony? This has gotten me curious. No doubt he thinks that they all were 'mistaken,' including the officers, carpenter, and other analysts onboard.
By the way, can you provide a link to those earlier debates? I'd like to read through those. I can't seem to find them. Thanks.
Mark, you'll find them sprinkled mostly through a number of threads in the Collisions Sinking Theories folder. I don't remember the specific titles, but they should come up if you use the search function or just go fishing around. Duke Collins stopped posting here several months ago, though as far as I know, his registration is still active. He may well be reading this and if that's the case, you may have a chance to discuss it with him directly.