Photo and Video Discrepancies


Osprey

Member
Jan 3, 2016
2
0
11
I am new to this forum so forgive me if I ask this in the wrong place.
My question revolves around the Titanic/Olympic conspiracy.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but some of the information given is very coincidental at worst, and even I can find videos or pictures of at least the Olympic with two different porthole configurations. Apparently the Titanic was made with 14, evenly spaced, portholes on the bow. The Olympic had 16, and 4 of the 16 were placed in 2 pairs per side. This is a very distinctive and noticeable difference. I just recently learned of this supposed conspiracy but have to say.... even for a skeptic, it does look pretty shady. Am I missing something? I still have other videos to watch again before I say for certain that it is the Olympic on the ocean floor but between the portholes and the windows, I am really not so sure that is the Titanic at the bottom of the ocean.
Any information that contradicts the conspiracy theories would be appreciated.

I have been interested in the Titanic since I was about 12 and I am almost 50 now. I have always found the story (as told) to be possible, but not probable (even the passenger accounts conflict). There have always been questions... I live within earshot of the Pacific. I am not unfamiliar with boats and I still can not for the life of me understand how they could strike the ice on the starboard side of the ship if the orders were full astern, hard to starboard, unless they turned the wrong direction. By reversing the propellers they would have caused massive cavitation, rendering the rudder useless. The forward momentum of the ship was too great to stop in time, we all know this. At best, the rudder would have given the ship a slight turn to starboard. The ship would not have turned to port and continued in a skewed forward path allowing it to strike the starboard side. So, how did they strike the ice on the starboard side?

Thanks!
 

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
567
174
108
38
Tacoma, WA
Your first topic has been 'overly' discussed (and sank) many of times on this forum. I suggest looking at looking at the 'Topic' page of this forum and finding the various threads. A quick google search will also bring up results. Beyond that I'll just refer to this book, 'Titanic or Olympic, Which Ship Sank?' – Steve Hall, Bruce Beveridge. Not to be short on this answer, but I think that is all that needs to be said about that. (I have a feeling it will be like opening Pandora's box if this topic rears its head again.)

As far as your second question, I'm not entirely sure what is being asked, but I'll give it a shot to answer it. The orders were given opposite of the desired direction the ship was to be turned. Therefore, if one wanted to turn 'port' one ordered 'starboard'. This was a throw back to the day of the tiller. So, upon seeing the berg, the order was 'Hard-a-starboard', in order to turn the head of the ship port, exposing the ship's starboard side to the berg. I will leave it there without going into further detail, as I don't know if I'm answering your question correctly.

As far as the reversal of the engines, it is commonly believed that this did not occur until after impact, and had nothing to do with the collision or evasive maneuvers. Even if it was before, there would be little time for it to have been performed, or for it to have effected the outcome. I will let someone else take the lead to this one.

BTW, Welcome aboard!
 

Adam Went

Member
Apr 28, 2003
1,194
11
233
Yes, welcome! B-rad has pretty much said it all but i'll just add quickly to be wary of photos and especially videos you see of the 'Titanic' on documentaries and so forth - because the Olympic lasted so much longer, both her interior and exterior were documented much more thoroughly. Therefore, it is a simple but common mistake that sometimes footage is claimed to be of the Titanic when it is, in fact, the Olympic. Just something to be mindful of.

Cheers,
Adam.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,522
953
248
Germany
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but some of the information given is very coincidental at worst, and even I can find videos or pictures of at least the Olympic with two different porthole configurations. Apparently the Titanic was made with 14, evenly spaced, portholes on the bow. The Olympic had 16,
Actually both ship had the same number. When Olympic was launch she had also 14 portholes on the port side of C Deck as Titanic had at her launch. During her early voyages it was noted that it would be better to have 2 portholes more as they would add more light and air (when open). The two extra were done on Titanic while she was fitted out. Olympic got them a bid later during her stay in Belfast. In short in 1912 both ships had 16 portholes on the port side.

I still can not for the life of me understand how they could strike the ice on the starboard side of the ship if the orders were full astern, hard to starboard, unless they turned the wrong direction.
At best, the rudder would have given the ship a slight turn to starboard. The ship would not have turned to port and continued in a skewed forward path allowing it to strike the starboard side. So, how did they strike the ice on the starboard side?
Back in those days the order hard to starboard mean in which direction the tiller (helm) was going. The rudder turned to port and the ship's bow turned away to port. (The orders were changed in the 1930s.)

The full astern order was never given. The only one who claimed that was 4th Officer Boxhall. This does not fit with what other survivors said. In a newspaper Hichens who was at the wheel said the order was stop. Dillon who was in the main engine room and Scott who was in the turbine engine room (he happened to be at the door looking into the main engine room) mentioned a stop order. Addition to that the boiler rooms received a stop order as mentioned by Barrett and Beauchamp. If the order was full astern the boiler rooms would have not get a stop order. (A stop order would mean to cut off the steam but to go full astern, steam would be needed.) The engines did go astern after the collision but only slow and not full.
[Even IF Murdoch gave a full astern order there was no time to carry it out.]
 
Nov 13, 2014
337
37
73
Belgium
I recently developed a new theory of how the collision took place, trying to match all survivor's accounts. First of all, it can't have been the popular "sideswipe" portrayed in movies. That type of crash must have created this much rebound that almost everyone would be thrown out of their beds, killing dozens of passengers and crew on impact. Instead, only those close to the bow were woken by the collision, and they weren't thrown out of their beds, and in other parts of the ship, passengers hardly noticed the collision. Based on this, David G. Brown suggested the collision was a grounding instead, and Titanic ran aground on a massive ice spur directly in her path, aside of the visible part of the iceberg. That's when I came with the idea that the iceberg hadn't capsized for quite a while and was about to capsize again when she collided with Titanic.

I also developed the idea that the damage to the side as clearly described by Fred Barrett wasn't the result of the iceberg in a sideswipe collision, it was caused by the hull becoming overstressed by the grounding. The forepeek must have touched the iceberg as well, Lamp Trimmer Hemming reported air leaking away at the stem tip.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,522
953
248
Germany
Based on this, David G. Brown suggested the collision was a grounding instead, and Titanic ran aground on a massive ice spur directly in her path, aside of the visible part of the iceberg.
From what I know his grounding theory has been put to rest a few years ago.

That's when I came with the idea that the iceberg hadn't capsized for quite a while and was about to capsize again when she collided with Titanic.
If the iceberg capsize when she collide, those who saw the iceberg would have notice it and the iceberg itself would have cause more damage to the ship.
Survivors described the iceberg having the shape like the rock of Gibraltar some of them saw it later when in a boat. Unless there were two icebergs with the shape like the rock of Gibraltar the capsizing theory makes no sense from that point too.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,522
953
248
Germany
I recently developed a new theory of how the collision took place, trying to match all survivor's accounts. First of all, it can't have been the popular "sideswipe" portrayed in movies. That type of crash must have created this much rebound that almost everyone would be thrown out of their beds, killing dozens of passengers and crew on impact.
That would have been the case if she would have hit the iceberg directly, but the ship was turning away and the engines were slowing down.

Instead, only those close to the bow were woken by the collision, and they weren't thrown out of their beds, and in other parts of the ship, passengers hardly noticed the collision.
Not really, here you can find a summary of some of the accounts and the position the people were at the moment of collision.
http://www.paullee.com/titanic/thecollision.php
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,697
882
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
A lot of argument here about engine orders.

Osprey

First, when ordering an astern movement in a steam driven ship, it was not normal to ring down FULL ASTERN from FULL AHEAD- even in an emergency. The procedure was as follows: Double ring STOP immediately followed by double ring FULL ASTERN. Imagine the following scene on the darkened bridge of Titanic.

The telegraph tell-tale arrow would be at FULL, Murdoch would rush-in, grab the handles and ring FULL ASTERN, FULL AHEAD STOP. "Tring-tring-tring." With hardly a pause, he would ring FULL ASTERN, STOP, FULL ASTERN. Tring-tring-tring."...After a brief moment, while the greasers in the engine room rushed to the ER telegraph, there would come an acknowledging series of "trings" from the engine room.
QM Hichens at the steering wheel, in the enclosed wheel house could not see the engine room telegraph. He was useless as a witness to what was rung-down, All he would hear would be "Tring-tring-tring..Tring-tring-tring"

Down in the main engine room, the duty engineers would run for the controls valves and shut-in the steam to the engines. At the same time, they would order all firemen to stop stoking - not to slow down stoking but to stop completely. They would do this by activate the stoking signals to the Boiler Rooms and the engine room to Boiler Room Telegraphs. The latter simply indicated STOP, SLOW, HALF and FULL. They did not seem to indicate direction.

View attachment 1714

View attachment 1713


After about 9 or 10 revolutions, the main engines would stop turning. The reversing gear would be engaged and the steam valve to the engines opened once more. At that point, the engines would start turning in reverse. At that moment, unless someone in the engine room actually saw the ER telegraph, they would not know whether the ASTERN order was for FULL or otherwise.

The engine room witnesses were useless as far as knowing what orders had been sent down from the bridge.

Greaser Scott worked in the Turbine Room. He was at the entrance between the Main engine Room and the Turbine Room when the first engine order was received. He said he saw the order STOP. Almost immediately after that, the WT doors began to descend. This meant that after the WT doors closed he was locked in the Turbine Room. That room did not have an ER telegraph therefore Scott could no have witnessed any other main engine orders until the WT doors were raised once more.
Trimmer Dillon's only knew if the engines were turning ahead or astern and he would know that from the direction the pistons were turning the shafts. We know this from his evidence:

"3946. Did you see the engine room telegraph? A: - No.
3947. How are you able to tell us what orders came down?
- By the telegraph ringing.

3948. But the ring would not tell you, would it?.. A: - It would tell me that the telegraph rang.
3949. Yes it would, but it would not tell you what order came down at all? A: - No."


The only reliable witnesses as to engine orders were 4nd Officer Boxhall and AB Poingdestre who very clearly told their questioners:

Boxhall:

- The engines were going full speed astern for quite a little time.
15350. Did you notice what the telegraphs indicated with regard to the engines?
- "Full speed astern," both.


Poingdestre
2795. Can you tell me this; at the time you felt the shock do you think your engines were working astern or working ahead? A: - I felt the vibration, but I could not say whether the engine was going ahead or astern.
2796. But it was a big vibration, was it? A: -- Yes.
2797. A sort of vibration that would tell a sailor that probably the engines were going astern? A: - Yes.

Boxhall was specific about what he saw registered on the bridge telegraphs. He would not lie about that - most certainly not to a B.o.T convened Inquiry.

As for the sensation of impact... it was little more than what would be felt when making heavy contacting with a quay-side. The most valuable evidence would come from those who were closest to the point of contact - those in the forecastle head accommodation at the time. However here is a selection fro the transcripts of the Inquiries:

Bridge:

Lightoller : - A slight jar and a grinding sound.
Boxhall: - there was not much of a shock to feel.

Forecastle:
AB Lucas: What did you hear, how did it sound like to you? A:- It very nearly sent me off my feet.
AB Buley: The slight jar. It seemed as though something was rubbing alongside of her, at the time.
AB Scarrott : Well, I did not feel any direct impact, but it seemed as if the ship shook in the same manner as if the engines had been suddenly reversed to full speed astern, just the same sort of vibration, enough to wake anybody up if they were asleep.
Fireman Shiers: A jar; the shake of the ship.

E Deck/U]
Chief Steward Hardy: I had not been in more than five minutes before I heard this slight shock.
Passenger Chambers: Our stateroom was E-8, on the starboard side; that is the lowest berth deck, and as far as I know, we were as far forward as any of the first-cabin passengers on that deck. I was in bed, and I noticed no very great shock,

Passenger Woolner: We felt it under the smoking room. We felt a sort of stopping, a sort of, not exactly shock, but a sort of slowing down;

As for an overturning iceberg: it happens slowly unless the berg itself is very small. If the Titanic berg had overturned on impact, it would not have stabalised until it was well astern of the ship. The only people who might have seen it do so would have been the lookouts. Even then, as soon as it passed Titanic's bridge, it would have been very hard for them to see since it would be almost invisible to them in the glare from the accommodation lighting. In daylight, it would have had a very smooth surface compared to other bergs.

JIm C.
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,242
527
278
In my view the idea that the iceberg somehow opened the side of Titanic during a sideswipe doesn’t – pardon the pun – hold water. Steel is harder than ice. This is particularly true of icebergs that are under the influence of the relatively warm North Atlantic Drift. While true that 1909 steel was brittle at freezing compared to modern metal, it was not as brittle as ice. Proof lies in the iron guards on bridge abutments and steel icepicks which were both common at the time. They simply did not fail when struck by ice or when picking apart blocks into chunks of ice. And, that’s not to mention the appearance of ice breaking ships made of steel. Then as now – when steel and ice meet, it’s the ice that gets the worst of the deal.

The grounding theory was originally contained in a paper authored by myself and Parks Stephenson about a decade ago. You can read it on his "Marconigraph" web site: Grounding of the Titanic Due to my closer location to Washington, D.C., I presented it to an august maritime forensic committee. That was a curious experience. Prior to the presenttion, one of the committee members admitted that our theory more closely matched what he had seen on the wreck during his work on an early TV documentary. Yet, when I stood up in the presentation room he led a most undignified shouting attack on the White Paper which Parks and I prepared. It was obvious a plan had been formulated among members of the committee to quite literally shout me down. I tried to answer, but realizing the futility simply closed my books, turned off the overhead projector, and left. I must add that the only gentleman in the room to properly question me was the late Roy Mengot.

Over the years I've uncovered much more questionable "forensics" surrounding Titanic. In my first book, "The Last Log Of The Titanic" I wrote about a TV documentary that claimed it had discovered "the damage that sank Titanic." They allegedly used mud-penetrating echosounding. Those echosounds have never been published for scrutiny, but are often parroted by wannabe historians. Unfortunately, a man connected with that effort told me to my face that while the did find the damage reported on the starboard side, they actually found MORE similar damage on the port. What they claimed was iceberg damage was more likely the result of the bow slamming into the mud. (No names here. I don't make personal attacks.)

Anyway, the popular “sideswipe” theory requires a sort of opposite reality to the universe we inhabit. In that upside-down world ice must be harder and more durable than steel. This alternate reality claims that ice can remain hard and sharp enough to damage hundreds of feet of steel hull. Yet, while doing so the ice is little changed, dulled, or broken apart. For if the ice was dulled, then the damage would not have been continuous over that distance. Not hardly likely as one second officer might say.

Another problem with the sideswipe theory is the claim that the hull damage is in a rather straight line some 9 feet above the keel. Titanic’s designed draft was about 34 feet. This puts the alleged ice knife somewhere near 25 feet below the surface. And, this raises an insoluable problem. The keel swept upward as it went forward from the after end of hold #1 to the stem. The peak tank which we know was damaged by the ice was not quite 20 feet beneath the surface. That should have given some 5 feet of clearance by which the peak tank should have avoided suffering damage. But, the tank did suffer damage and that requires a complete rethinking of any sideswipe. To have damaged both the peak tank and the holds as the sideswipe theory requires, the portion of the berg that did the damage had to be simultaneously less than 20 feet and more than 25 feet below the surface. The gap between those numbers is never discussed. It could have been the result of two identical ice knives just five feet apart. But, in that case the damage would have been two roughly parallel tracks of hull openings and this was not observed in Titanic. So, the sideswipe does not match reality. Something else must have happened.

The sideswipe theory has even more problems to overcome. One is the almost unnoticed impact by people in the bow area directly above the ice contact. Any discussion of Titanic’s encounter with the berg must account for the unusual softness of impact over about 200 feet of hull. According to Newton, a sideways impact should have created an equal and opposite reaction. The bow should have caromed to the left. Not being perfect, I’ve sideswiped a piling or two making dockings, so I’ve got some experience in the consequences. People in Titanic could well have been tossed out of fore-and-aft aligned bunks. And, my experience carrying passengers shows it would also have knocked the legs out from beneath people, particularly those facing forwared or aft. Yet in reality nobody seems to have been much bothered by this necessary carom effect from a sideswipe. None of the logical results of a sideswipe happened in the bow forward of the well deck. One oddity of the Titanic story is that so many people in the bow slept through the accident. The reality of Titanic's odd soft impact forces us to walk away from the sideswipe argument and consider other forms of interaction between the ship and berg which would likely result in what did occur. That interaction has to be something proven to cause great damage to ships, yet also shown to be quite gentle. To me the most likely cause was a grounding on an underwater shoulder of the iceberg.

I once discussed the grounding of a Mississippi paddlewheel passenger vessel with its captain. The incident had taken place several years previously when he was a senior officer in the ship. Still, he recalled it vividly. To set the stage we have to know something about river operations in North America. Sand bars and mud bars plague what are known as the Western Rivers. These bars form and disappear quickly – sometime over a few hours. Just because a vessel passed in deep water a day ago doesn’t mean that a bar hasn’t formed to catch the unwary captain on his return trip. Anyway, the officer I met said the ship went onto the mud (yes, it was Mississippi mud) so softly that the only way the crew knew a grounding had taken place was to look at the far bank. They noticed that the trees were no longer moving past the ship (an illusion in calm waters, but that’s what he said). Even though the paddle was working up a froth, the steamboat had come to a stop and remained in that conditions for perhaps a minute or longer before the situation was noticed by the wheelhouse crew.

His recollection of the incident matched my experiences landing boatloads of bird watchers on a riverbank to allow them to visit a heronry. The sounds and motions of these landings are what originally caused me to consider grounding as the type of impact between Titanic and the iceberg. Even so, I knew the grounding theory had to clear one substantial hurdle. `A soft grounding can do little or no damage to the hull. And, while I heard sounds like those described in Titanic when intentionally grounding my boat, its hull was stout enough to withstand deliberate running over the mud and gravel riverbank. The U.S. Coast Guard even examined my boat’s hull and gave me specific permission to deliberately run onto the river bank. These two incidents raised problems for my grounding idea. If grounding was so harmless, why did Titanic suffer so much damage?

I found a likely answer when I examined what happens to a ship’s hull when it is improperly blocked in a dry dock. While floating, the weight of the ship and its cargo are spread out evenly across the bottom of the hull. No one area on the shell gets more strain than another. However, when a vessel is dried out it rests on small portions of the hull which are supported by blocks beneath the ship. This arrangement puts large amounts of weight on relatively small areas of the bottom. If things aren’t done correctly, the shell plating and internal framework can be badly damaged. Naval architects prevent this by arranging strong places for ship to rest on the blocks. And, they prepare a special plan showing where those blocks are to be placed. If things are not done correctly quite a bit can go wrong. Here's what I found in just one book:


"The dockmaster must first obtain a docking blueprint or docking plan of the vessel. ...this plan tells him how to set up the keel and bilge blocks to support the vessel. The ajor weight is supported by keel blocks along the keel.

"When a vessel is dry-docked...the total weight of the vessel may have to be borne by small portions of the ship’s bottom. ...special cribs are placed at strategic locations, such as under longitudinals and under transverse bulkheads to take the load... ...most insurance companies do not permit the dockmaster to load the blocking over 15 tons to the square foot of supporting materials.

"...the dockmaster of docking officer fis refers to the ship’s docking plan. This furnishes necessary information concerning the underwater hul for docking purposes. ...every ship should carry its own docking plan. During the period when the ship is in dock, no change of any kind should be made... Improper changes in weights may cause the ship to do serious damage to herself." (Hayler, William B, Merchant Marine Officer’s Handbook, Cornell Maritime Press, Centreville, MD, 1989, page 410).


It should be apparent that damage from grounding would be quite similar from improper blocking in a drydock. Both situations cause relatively small areas of the hull to support an excess amount of the ship’s weight. And, great damage can be done if that area is not properly braced by the ship’s own internal structure. Now, imagine that if instead of sitting still, that improperly placed blocking were to be moved from the bow aft along the bottom several hundred feet. The damage described by Haler would follow the movement of that errant block. Likewise, rolling over an underwater obstruction like the submerged shoulder of an iceberg should have created exactly the damage incurred by Titanic. And experiences of real vessels show it could have done so without raising enough of a ruckus (bumping and thumping) to awaken passengers.

Support for my idea comes from the testimony of the lookouts who described the starboard side as being lifted slightly during the accident, causing their crow’s nest to lean off to port. The lifting of the hull was not uniform, but rather confined to a small area that corresponded to the shape of the iceberg. The result was what naval architects call “rolling shear.” In my view, the result would have been sheared-off rivets in the seam above the turn of the bilge (above the margin brackets). As Jim said, I also agree that while the result was a loss of watertight integrity it caused minimal visible damage.

In another thread, Jim said that the portion of a ship’s hull at the turn of the bilge is one of its strongest areas. Yes, and doubly so in the case of Titanic. The curve of Titanic’s bilge was protected along most of its length by doubled shell plating. While this would have protected that vulnerable area from iceberg damage it may well have made things worse for the shell plating just above the doubling. This created what engineers often call a "hard spot" where the less flexible doubled plating met the single thickness skin of the topsides. If the lifting described by Fleet was the result of rolling over the iceberg (i.e. a “grounding”), then the result would have been unfair strains on the hull from forepeak to well deck along the top edge of the double plating. The area of the ship's bottom as well as the turn of the bilge should have flexed enough to escape major damage other than the odd shell plate crack or missing rivet. Any resulting ingress would have been into the double bottom tanks and void spaces where it would not have posed an immediate threat to the safety of the ship.

Unfortunately, that "hard spot" designed to protect the turn of the bilge against grounding on rocks became a liability. It focused the moving strain on the seams in the vertical side plates in the vertical side. Most precisely, the strain would have focused on the first seam above the double plating and on the rivets that held things together. The result should have been sprung seam as described by survivors. (I must point out that seams run fore-and aft. In the portion of the hull aft of hold #1 they are roughly parallel to the surface of the water. Hence, the straight-line damage so often described.)

Something else that works against the bow sideswipe theory was the what appears to be the only actual sideswipe damage to the ship. It came in way of boiler room #4. This is the compartment where hard impact against the berg caused an avalanche of coal to tumble down around trimmer Cavelle. It also drove pieces of ice onto the decks and scraped ice into port hole sills. The scraping of ice is indicative that this was truly a sideswipe event. It is my belief that this impact – not the grounding of the bow – was the motion felt by men in the first class smoking room and elsewhere aft of the well deck. The soft rumbling of grounding on the ice did not cause coal to tumble about in boiler roooms #5 or #6. But the shock of sideswipe did rumble through the ship and knock down coal around the hapless trimmer. This short-lived sideswipe created far less water ingress in boiler room #4 than in the holds or peak tank forward. So, the actual damages of a sideswipe – big impact with little water ingress – does not match the soft impact and extended damage in the bow.


– David G. Brown
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,697
882
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
David.

As you rightly point-out, steel is stronger that ice. So is concreted and wood for that matter. The effect on a welded hull in contact with such materials is completely different from their effect on a welded construction.
In the case of the former, plates are fused together at their joints to form a continuous strength member of steel. Whereas, in a welded construction, there is no continuity of strength at the joints. Strength of the joint and hence the entire structure depends alone on the tightness of the method of joining.
In a welded steel construction, a considerable amount of distortion can take place yet joints will hold
However, we are not discussing a welded construction. Titanic's, hull plating joints were, as you know, entirely riveted. This meant that any heavy contact with an unyielding surface would cause distortion. The surface in question could be a rock, concrete or wood pier or another vessel. Additionally, the contact did not have to be 'sharp'; just heavy enough to distort a joint enough for the rivet shanks in the way to also become distorted. At that moment, joint failure would occur. Titanic would receive more than enough side pressure to cause joint failure along the line of contact, which in her case, if it happened 2 feet above the boiler plate, happened at a height of about 10 feet above the keel on the starboard side. If she was drawing about 31 feet at the bow, this means that the damage area was subject to a pressure of about 1280 lbs/ cu ft. Think what that would be like hosing through a 2 in wide 20 ft long gap!

Jim C.
 

Osprey

Member
Jan 3, 2016
2
0
11
Thank you everyone for the polite replies. I worried this had been beat to death and may be a highly offensive topic. You guys will have me reading all the responses for an hour! :)
In regards to the quick read I have done so far....
Yes, the images and videos are deceptive that is why I have only confirmed the Olympic as having the two different configurations. In the majority of the images and video, the name is not shown or can not be made out.
Thanks for the book and reading suggestions and also thanks for clarifying the call to starboard. I was not aware it referenced tiller operation.
Good group! Cheers!
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,242
527
278
Everyone who favors the sideswipe theory -- if you will, please draw a picture that shows withing reason a plausible shape for an iceberg that could do the damage claimed. It can't be done without drawing a berg that does not fit the actual shape of bergs in the latitude of the accident. Bergs in that area have pinnacled tops that widen out beneath the water for a short distance before becoming narrow again. Virtually all of the drawings which are plausible show the hull plowing across the underwater shoulder of the berg

RMS-Titanic-gliding-over-iceberg-shelf1.jpg


in order to get the side close enough to the ice for a sideswipe to occur. Sorry, but the real shapes of the objects do not allow the actual damage to Titanic's peak tank, and forward three holds to have occurred with so little sense of impact. We know this to be true by the impact in way of boiler room #4 which was undoubtedly a sideswipe based on the evidence of ice in port holes, etc., that I mentioned earlier. What happened in the bow was not what happened in #4. Have it any way you want, but you cannot claim the same type of mechanism was at work in both places. If boiler room #4 sideswiped, then the bow did something else. My theory allows for the actual physical differences between the two types of impact. The sideswipe theory fails totally in that regard.

-- David G. Brown
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,697
882
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Everyone who favors the sideswipe theory -- if you will, please draw a picture that shows withing reason a plausible shape for an iceberg that could do the damage claimed.
No problem David... here you go:

berg mechanics.JPG

Here's another I made a few months ago:

europa-point.jpg

The first one is to scale.

It can't be done without drawing a berg that does not fit the actual shape of bergs in the latitude of the accident. in that area have pinnacled tops that widen out beneath the water for a short distance before becoming narrow again. Virtually all of the drawings which are plausible show the hull plowing across the underwater shoulder of the berg.

David, any drawing showing an underwater profile is pure guess work. My sketches were developed from the evidence given by someone who actually saw the thing and from having many times seen exactly what he was comparing the berg with.

Sorry, but the real shapes of the objects do not allow the actual damage to Titanic's peak tank, and forward three holds to have occurred with so little sense of impact.

But David, since no one ever saw the underside of the berg that did for Titanic, you cannot make that statement.

The sensation described is exactly the same as the sensation when hitting the quayside in a big ship and is no way indicative of what you will find when the vessel is dry docked. The only think we can say for certain is that the amount of damage incurred in such a collision is directly proportional to the angle of approach and speed at the moment of contact. Believe me, I've inspected enough casualties and been confronted by enough surprises to known what I'm talking about.

What happened in the bow was not what happened in #4. Have it any way you want, but you cannot claim the same type of mechanism was at work in both places.

Yes I can and I can even show you why with a simple sketch: See here.

More ideas.JPG

Enjoy! Happy New Year!. Best wishes to you and yours.

Jim C.

berg mechanics.JPG


europa-point.jpg


More ideas.JPG
 

Doug Criner

Member
Dec 2, 2009
440
58
133
USA
In my experience, when engines go astern (instead of ahead), there is a very noticeably increased racket and vibration. I think the noise is caused by the cavitation of propellers not optimally designed for going astern, not necessarily by the engines themselves. But, I have not sailed in ships with reciprocating steam engines - only turbine powered. (Turbine engines normally can't be reversed, without a reversible reduction gear. In my ancient navy experience, there was a separate astern turbine or astern section on the main turbines. Upon an astern bell, steam to the ahead turbines was cut off and steam was admitted to the astern turbines.)

In my navy engineering watches (in an old 1940s-era destroyer), if an astern bell were received while underway, the standard procedure was to cut in all the boiler burners, shut off the steam to the ahead engines, and simultaneously admit steam to the astern turbines to slow down and reverse the propellers. All the boiler burners (oil-fired) were immediately cut in because the astern turbines were less efficient than the main engines, and any bell from ahead to astern, while underway, was assumed to be an emergency. In an emergency, there would not have been a stop bell rung down between the ringing down from ahead to back.

Maneuvering in port, of course, would be different than a sudden astern bell while cruising ahead.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,697
882
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
You got it in one, Doug!

When the ship is charging ahead, the water displaced by her sort of foldsin at the stern post to replace the displaced water. A great deal of turbulence is created.. lots of semi voids into which the reversing propeller blades fall. Hence the thump of the blades and the heavy vibration. I've served in all three types and going astern is very noticeable in all.. even from a stopped position. It's that exact same turbulence which drastically reduced the efficiency of Titanic's rudder and would have prevented any hard-a-port rudder from being an effective part of the avoiding sequence as some people would have us believe.

Jim C.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,035
1,334
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
13757. When you came out on deck was the ship already stopped or slowing down through the water? - [Lightoller] She was proceeding slowly, a matter of perhaps six knots or something like that.
13758. Were the engines still stopped? - I could not exactly say what the engines were doing after once I got up. It was when I was lying still in my bunk I could feel the engines were stopped.
13759. Can you help us as to whether the engines were put full speed astern? - No, I cannot say I remember feeling the engines going full speed astern.
13760. When you looked over the side you thought she was going through the water about six knots? - Yes, four to six knots. I did not stay there long.

Lightoller would know what full astern from full ahead would feel like since he took part in that very test during the trials. Descriptions of people like Poingdestre, who was asked a very leading question by the way, is that of the allision that took place with the berg and last just a few seconds.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,697
882
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Happy New Year to you and yours, Sam.

Also according to Lightoller:

13734. If you were awake you felt something, I suppose? Just describe to us what it was you felt?
- It is best described as a jar and a grinding sound. There was a slight jar followed by this grinding sound. It struck me we had struck something and then thinking it over it was a feeling as if she may have hit something with her propellers, and on second thoughts I thought perhaps she had struck some obstruction with her propeller and stripped the blades off. There was a slight jar followed by the grinding - a slight bumping."

The sensation of a lost or damaged blade is exactly the same as the vibration caused by going astern. Lightollers said
"No, I cannot say I remember feeling the engines going full speed astern."

That's because they never reached full astern revolutions

We know from Trimmer Dillon that the engines never did reach full astern but they most certainly did turn astern and do so about 2 minutes after impact. That was just enough time for them to stop the engines and put them to full astern. However Dillon did not see the ER telegraph. Al he knew was that 2 minutes after impact, they started moving astern. That was long before Lightoller went out on deck. Who was on the bridge at that time do you think?

Lightoller's height of eye was 75 feet above the sea. he had emerged from a brightly lit accommodation onto a lit boat deck and looked down at the water. there's no way he could have guaged speed with any accuracy.. In fact he changed his speed from 6 knots to from 4 to 6 knots.

Jim C.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads