Screams Came from Floating Stern?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 13, 2016
145
50
63
30
Changing stories do make it somewhat difficult to understand and separate fact from fiction. What makes matters worse is, much of what survivors have said seems to be lost in translation. If any hand gestures were made, we can't see them. What descriptions were given, in many cases, were not elaborated on.
 

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
43
63
Lightoller said the ship had turned around when he was sucked underwater. That was before he made it to the collapsible. When he came to the surface again the broken stern was facing the opposite way as survivors saw it turn around after she broke. Jack Thayer was on the collapsible boat and described the ship turning around and looked up and saw the propellers above the collapsible boat and thought they were going to come down and smash the boat. Lightoller got onto this boat after he reached the surface. Since he believed the ship had turned around while he was under the water (before he got onto the collapsible) it would mean the boat was not pushed away by the waves created by the 1st funnel falling as it was a great distance away, which is why it may have been the 4th funnel that fell backwards and fell near the propellers where the collapsible boat was. Another possibility is that the broken stern was turning around before the bow had submerged. So it could have been the first funnel and the stern was hovering over the bow section as it turned around. Lightoller did not tell the official Inquiries what he later stated i.e. that the ship had exploded and turned around when he was under the water, because the Inquiry would have been puzzled how the stern section and propellers could be hovering above his boat while the bow section was sinking separately and the first funnel was falling near his boat.


.
I fully comprehend what you saying, I am simply doubting that such an event in the sinking actually took place. It seems to be a cluster of improbable if not impossible sequence of events and dubious account in which you base the unlikely theory on. From the account you have I am suppose to entertain that while the bow is still at the surface a break up would occur and during the period of time Lighttoller was underwater that stern rotated and still the bow is at the surface? And that once he returned to the surface the furthest aft funnel collapses and caused the wave that pushed the collapsible away, with the bow still at the surface? I wouldn't know were to start as it is simply illogical. I do not pretend to be an expert Aaron but I cannot imagine for a moment that the situation like the one you explain could actually have occurred.

"which is why it may have been the 4th funnel that fell backwards and fell near the propellers where the collapsible boat was. Another possibility is that the broken stern was turning around before the bow had submerged. So it could have been the first funnel and the stern was hovering over the bow section as it turned around."

It actually makes even less sense now that I have read it over a second time as you have the stern doing some serious acrobatic moves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Mar 18, 2008
2,364
688
248
Germany
Yes, and some sources (as the Logan Marschall book) are known for the made up and wrong reported stories.
In this book there are several survivors with adventurous escapes or ridiculous stories. A few lines after the Lightoller story is the mentioned that Jack Thayer was thrown off by an explosion. We know from Thayer himself that he was together with Milton Long and they left the ship (sliding the rope and jumping) together.
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2008
2,364
688
248
Germany
"which is why it may have been the 4th funnel that fell backwards and fell near the propellers where the collapsible boat was. Another possibility is that the broken stern was turning around before the bow had submerged. So it could have been the first funnel and the stern was hovering over the bow section as it turned around."
It actually makes even less sense now that I have read it over a second time as you have the stern doing some serious acrobatic moves.
It does also contradict every other survivor description and Aaron contradicts even himself with his other theories about the break up/sinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I merely state what the survivors said and try to piece together what may have occurred and when the hypothesis has been debated thoroughly enough and a pattern emerges I can then move onto the next hypothesis. So often are survivor accounts deemed to be mistaken or lying without proof or the source that provides their accounts is mistaken or lying without proof, and if the survivors gave their accounts in their elder years they are deemed to be mistaken or confused. All I can gather is that any account that doesn't 'fit the mainstream narrative' is deemed to be wrong. This is why I turn over every stone and explore every available avenue before I can accept the general consensus. We can only put our trust in the honesty of each survivor's account and the legitimacy of the source that provided the account. We willingly accept the transcripts of the official Inquiries, but they are just as suspicious and contradictory as any other source, and we don't even know for certain if the transcripts are entirely accurate. A misplaced word here or there could greatly affect how the accounts are read and interpreted by the individuals who use them for research.

e.g. Fred Barrett said the order 'Stop' came before the collision, but when he was questioned aboard the Olympic by Senator Smith the reporters who were present said that Barrett was "positive" that the order 'Stop' came 'after the collision' not before.


.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
It actually makes even less sense now that I have read it over a second time as you have the stern doing some serious acrobatic moves.
Let's assume the bow was about 35 percent filled with water. The ship breaks. Water rushes into the middle. The weight of water in that section added with the weight of the engines and stern sink the middle of the ship down rapidly causing her to buckle amidships. Whatever water that was forward would then rush aft. As the back of the bow sinks down rapidly the stern cants upwards and turns around. As the two sections separate the bow sinks down just as the stern swings over. Lightoller was sucked down several times and he believed the ship had already turned around when he reached the surface. When Jack Thayer looked up he saw the propellers above the collapsible boat. If this was before the wave had pushed the boat away from the ship and away from the throng of people in the water then it would confirm that the stern had broke and turned around before the funnel had fallen (assuming it was the forward funnel that pushed the collapsible away.)



titanic1.PNG



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,010
446
158
19
Let's assume the bow was about 35 percent filled with water. The ship breaks. Water rushes into the middle. The weight of water in that section added with the weight of the engines and stern sink the middle of the ship down rapidly causing her to buckle amidships. Whatever water that was forward would then rush aft. As the back of the bow sinks down rapidly the stern cants upwards and turns around. As the two sections separate the bow sinks down just as the stern swings over. Lightoller was sucked down several times and he believed the ship had already turned around when he reached the surface. When Jack Thayer looked up he saw the propellers above the collapsible boat. If this was before the wave had pushed the boat away from the ship and away from the throng of people in the water then it would confirm that the stern had broke and turned around before the funnel had fallen (assuming it was the forward funnel that pushed the collapsible away.)



View attachment 3751


.
But there is no proof, scientific reasoning, or probability that supports a break before any funnel collapses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
43
63
I merely state what the survivors said and try to piece together what may have occurred and when the hypothesis has been debated thoroughly enough and a pattern emerges I can then move onto the next hypothesis. So often are survivor accounts deemed to be mistaken or lying without proof or the source that provides their accounts is mistaken or lying without proof, and if the survivors gave their accounts in their elder years they are deemed to be mistaken or confused. All I can gather is that any account that doesn't 'fit the mainstream narrative' is deemed to be wrong. This is why I turn over every stone and explore every available avenue before I can accept the general consensus. We can only put our trust in the honesty of each survivor's account and the legitimacy of the source that provided the account. We willingly accept the transcripts of the official Inquiries, but they are just as suspicious and contradictory as any other source, and we don't even know for certain if the transcripts are entirely accurate. A misplaced word here or there could greatly affect how the accounts are read and interpreted by the individuals who use them for research.

e.g. Fred Barrett said the order 'Stop' came before the collision, but when he was questioned aboard the Olympic by Senator Smith the reporters who were present said that Barrett was "positive" that the order 'Stop' came 'after the collision' not before.


.

What I see is that you taking a situation and molding it to your hypothesis. You take testimony and make these far-fetched if not impossible conclusions to fit what you want the testimony to mean.You take liberties with evidence into concluding some improbable happenings that in no way are corroborated by other witnesses let alone the testimony you are using to support your hypothesis and it is becoming more and more a fictional story not supported by science, experts or even the accounts if you view them with a carefully. It seems you are all over the place with what you deem credible, claiming nobody's account is trustworthy so nothing can be proven or disproven thus making you view immune from from skepticism. Some of the hypothesis you come up with, like this one, often defy the laws of physics and ignore information that is proven fact and you present some convoluted series of events and flooding that, to me, sound a little odd or not supported by anything physical.e
 
Last edited:
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
What I see is that you taking a situation and molding it to your hypothesis......

Just ignored your rant and reported you.



But there is no proof, scientific reasoning, or probability that supports a break before any funnel collapses.

Plenty of proof that the ship broke before the forward funnel fell.

1. Survivors heard explosive sounds coming from deep inside the ship. Immediately after this the bow took a sudden and violent lurch and the people were washed off the boat deck and the lowering of the forward collapsible had to be abandoned. This explosive sound and violent lurch was in my opinion caused by the break up.

2. Edward Brown saw the ship break in two. He gave his location as: "In the water; right before the forward funnel."

3. We have survivors who saw the two forward funnels leaning and watched her break in two. The leaning was evidently caused by the forward section breaking away which caused the bow to take a sudden lurch.

4. We have accounts of the ship breaking when the sea had reached the officer's quarters and before the bridge was submerged. e.g. George Brayton - "I saw the waters reach the bridge after the vessel broke in two and the forward portion began sinking first."

5. We have accounts of the ship trembling, shaking, and reeling. This was I believe the broken bow and stern rapidly flooding at the broken ends and rocking violently as they lost buoyancy. e.g. John Haggan - "The ship was shaking very much, part of it being under water. On looking up at it, I could see death in a minute for us as the forward funnel was falling and it looked a certainty it would strike our boat and smash it to pieces."

6. We have accounts of the ship breaking and then turning around. Lightoller denied the ship broke but he admitted the ship had exploded and turned around before he reached the surface and that was before he reached the collapsible which was later pushed away from the scene by the funnel when it eventually fell. His own admission that the ship had turned around while he was under the water is proof that she was already broken. He just couldn't admit to that at the Inquiry. None of the officers could.

7. We have accounts of a violent explosion that killed a number of people in the water. We can't even determine what caused the ship to break. Just theorise on what may have happened. Survivors heard 2 distinct explosive sounds that were between 10 and 20 minutes apart. This could have been the ship breaking up in stages before finally separating completely. Again, we can only theorise on what may have caused those explosions or explosive sounds.

8. Lightoller said the forward funnel fell over to starboard because the expansion joint opened which caused a cable on one side to hold for a fraction longer which pulled the funnel over to starboard. This tells us that the bow was no longer listing to port. When ships take their final plunge they often right themselves on a level keel as they fill with water. The vast amount of the ship (if intact) was still above water and she should have continued to list over to port, but because she had broke she flooded heavily and rapidly and the bow section returned to a level keel as it sank down, so that the funnel would fall over to starboard when the cable on one side broke.

Science is always secondary. It can only determine the facts based on what survivors said and what physical evidence can be found inside the wreck. Owing to the condition of the wreck we cannot rule out anything, and if scientists do not follow the accounts or project a scenario based on the accounts then their findings no matter how well carried out will still be flawed. A single porthole left open could change their analysis. There are too many unknowns, and if accounts as important as the ones I listed are casually disregarded then science must also be disregarded as it will be inaccurate and incomplete. Of course, this is merely my opinion, as we are all entitled to believe what we want based on our own research and findings.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
43
63
Just ignored your rant and reported you.



Plenty of proof.

1. Survivors heard explosive sounds coming from deep inside the ship. Immediately after this the bow took a sudden and violent lurch and the people were washed off the boat deck and the lowering of the forward collapsible had to be abandoned. This explosive sound and violent lurch was in my opinion caused by the break up.

2. Edward Brown saw the ship break in two. He gave his location as: "In the water; right before the forward funnel." It had not fallen yet.

3. We have survivors who saw the two forward funnels leaning and watched her break in two. The leaning was evidently the forward section breaking away which caused the bow to take a sudden lurch and from a distance the two forward funnels would appear to lean forward as she broke.

4. We have accounts of the ship breaking when the sea had reached the officer's quarters and before the bridge was submerged. e.g. George Brayton - "I saw the waters reach the bridge after the vessel broke in two and the forward portion began sinking first."

5. We have accounts of the ship trembling, shaking, and reeling before the funnel fell. This was I believe the broken bow and stern rapidly flooding at the broken ends and rocking violently as they lost buoyancy. e.g. John Haggan - "The ship was shaking very much, part of it being under water. On looking up at it, I could see death in a minute for us as the forward funnel was falling and it looked a certainty it would strike our boat and smash it to pieces."

6. We have accounts of the ship breaking and then turning around. Lightoller denied the ship broke but he admitted the ship had exploded and turned around before he reached the surface and that was before he reached the collapsible which was later pushed away from the scene by the funnel when it eventually fell. His own admission that the ship had turned around while he was under the water is proof that she was already broken. He just couldn't admit to that at the Inquiry. None of the officers could.

7. We have accounts of a violent explosion that killed a number of people in the water. We can't even determine what caused the ship to break. Just theorise on what may have happened. Survivors heard 2 distinct explosive sounds that were between 10 and 20 minutes apart. This could have been the ship breaking up in stages before finally separating completely. Again, we can only theorise on what may have caused those explosions or explosive sounds.

8. Lightoller said the forward funnel fell over to starboard because the expansion joint opened which caused a cable on one side to hold for a fraction longer which pulled the funnel over to starboard. This tells us that the bow was no longer listing to port. When ships take their final plunge their often right themselves on a level keel as their fill with water. The vast the ship (if intact) was still above water and she should have continued to list over to port, but because she had broke she flooded heavily and rapidly and the bow section returned to a level keel as it sank down, so that the funnel would fall over to starboard when the cable on one side broke.

Science is always secondary. It can only determine the facts based on what survivors said and what physical evidence can be found inside the wreck. Owing to the condition of the wreck we cannot rule out anything, and if scientists do not follow the accounts or project a scenario based on the accounts then their findings no matter how well carried out will still be flawed. If accounts are disregarded then science must also be disregarded as inaccurate and incomplete.


.
"Just ignored your rant"
You do a lot of ignoring don't you? Report me? On what grounds?
Why are becoming petty? Im not getting into this with you again. I said what I needed to say on the legitimacy or lack of it in regard to your theory and will be moving on.

Ps.If other people are saying it, perhaps some self-reflecting will do you some good.
 
Last edited:

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,010
446
158
19
Science is always secondary.
Survivor accounts should be taken with a grain of salt if:

A) They defy the laws of physics

B) Are outliers from the majority

C) Do not match recorded facts

You say that nothing can be out ruled from the condition of the wreck, so by your logic, it is possible to say that the ship never even broke apart?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,128
656
208
England
The biggest problem I have with this idea that the stern section somehow rotated through 180 degrees while on the surface is that I can't, for the life of me, work out where the force came from to enable that scenario to take place?

We are talking about a section of the ship weighing close to 20 thousand tonnes. That is going to take a significant amount of force to rotate.

What force pushed on the side of the hull to impart a rotating movement?
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,364
688
248
Germany
Plenty of proof that the ship broke before the forward funnel fell.
Plenty of proof? What proof? Jack Thayer was clear the funnel fall before she breaks. Yet you left that part out and use only what fit with your idea.


3. We have survivors who saw the two forward funnels leaning and watched her break in two. The leaning was evidently caused by the forward section breaking away which caused the bow to take a sudden lurch.
Which survivors? Mrs. Ryerson was the one. Which are the others?

6. We have accounts of the ship breaking and then turning around. Lightoller denied the ship broke but he admitted the ship had exploded and turned around before he reached the surface and that was before he reached the collapsible which was later pushed away from the scene by the funnel when it eventually fell. His own admission that the ship had turned around while he was under the water is proof that she was already broken. He just couldn't admit to that at the Inquiry. None of the officers could.
7. We can't even determine what caused the ship to break.
Yes we can. It is only you who is coming up that nothing can be trusted and explained and use made up and yellow press reports.

So you claim now the ship broke when Lightoller was under water and turned (Lightoller did not said that the stern turned, it is you who said this). You are arguing the first funnel did not fall as Lightoller said a funnel. Now you listed in point 5 & 8 accounts about the first funnel falling. So you use only the silly report about Lightoller from the Marschall book but ignore everything else even what he has in his own book. Why?



Science is always secondary. It can only determine the facts based on what survivors said and what physical evidence can be found inside the wreck. Owing to the condition of the wreck we cannot rule out anything, and if scientists do not follow the accounts or project a scenario based on the accounts then their findings no matter how well carried out will still be flawed. A single porthole left open could change their analysis. There are too many unknowns, and if accounts as important as the ones I listed are casually disregarded then science must also be disregarded as it will be inaccurate and incomplete. Of course, this is merely my opinion, as we are all entitled to believe what we want based on our own research and findings..
No, you are using bit and parts from different sources try to fit it into your ideas. So what is it now, is it what survivors said, your opinion or what exactly?
What scientist left what out? Have you ever read any of the research papers about the break up? And interesting how you ignore other survivors and when showed that something can not be the case you came up with the same excuse about we did not know what happened and science to be wrong. Something similar conspiracy theorist do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,364
688
248
Germany
You say that nothing can be out ruled from the condition of the wreck, so by your logic, it is possible to say that the ship never even broke apart?
It is more with statements like this or his other ones (like we do not know how and what happened) one can came up and claim everything he likes.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
It is more with statements like this or his other ones (like we do not know how and what happened) one can came up and claim everything he likes.

Ignored your rant and reported you. I don't give a damn what you think of my research. If you don't like it, then don't read it. You can criticise the survivor accounts, but my opinion of them is off limits and the Moderator has already stated in the past that criticism against any member's opinions will not be tolerated. You have been reported 'again'.



Survivor accounts should be taken with a grain of salt if:

A) They defy the laws of physics

B) Are outliers from the majority

C) Do not match recorded facts

You say that nothing can be out ruled from the condition of the wreck, so by your logic, it is possible to say that the ship never even broke apart?

A) Defy the laws of physics - The physics are based on the flood rate and that flood rate is based on what survivors saw and how much the ship had listed. Entirely based on survivor accounts. Which is why science is secondary.

B) I believe when the survivors saw the ship turn around it was obviously in my opinion the broken stern, so any survivor who could originally see her beam before she broke might only see her keel after she broke, and vice versa, depending on where each survivor was before and after the ship broke which might also change. As this is rarely discussed we can not prove what the survivors saw was true, a lie, or simply they were mistaken. As the science follows what they say, there is a great deal of give and take regarding the survivor accounts they use when they construct their models. It is entirely up to them as to which survivors they choose to believe.

C) The recorded facts are: We are told by survivors that the ship struck an iceberg, broke in two and sank. For decades the survivors who saw her break were not believed because survivors that the public chose to believe did not mention her breaking. They had to find the wreck to prove them wrong. If the general consensus was wrong for decades, then who knows what else they got wrong. Which is why all survivor accounts should be analysed thoroughly before they can be ignored.

Nothing can be overlooked or out ruled. Every survivor account should be treated as true until proven wrong because everything we have learned from the disaster comes from survivor accounts. Hence their importance and why nothing can be overlooked.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,128
656
208
England
A) Defy the laws of physics - The physics are based on the flood rate and that flood rate is based on what survivors saw and how much the ship had listed. Entirely based on survivor accounts. Which is why science is secondary
Just because someone said they saw it happen does not mean it happened. It is the job of science and engineers to put this to the test.

Put National Geographic on on any night and watch episodes of Air Crash Investigation (broadcast as Mayday! In some countries). The investigators in air accidents take a holistic approach which, while it includes passenger, crew and witness testimony, uses all of the available evidence plus science to determine what is and isn't possible to get to the outcome.

Please can you explain what during the final moments of the stern section imparted enough force to rotate up to twenty thousand tonnes of hull through 180 degrees?

Newton's first law of motion states a body will do whatever it is doing until another force is applied. In the case of the stern, the forces are those of gravity forcing the hull down and the opposite force of buoyancy trying to hold the hull up. These forces are acting in a vertical plane.

Where does the horizontal force come from that can exert enough energy to cause a rotational movement as indicated by the rotational arrow in your drawing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
We don't know where the ship broke before she separated. Survivors said they were blown away and saw a number of dead bodies around them. The stern keeled over to port when she broke. I think it's safe to presume the starboard side of the ship broke or blew wide open, causing the stern to careen over to one side and turn around as the port side remained intact and was twisted around as the bow sank rapidly and pulled the stern around. As the bow reached a certain depth the air inside the stern would compress and resist the bow and separate completely and rise to the surface again. We have no idea how much the stern rocked and reeled as it broke and later when it separated and whatever direction it may have taken. As we have survivors who saw the stern turn around we can only put our trust in what they saw happen. I recall a documentary which showed a large trail of coal on the sea floor in a straight line in front of the stern and they suspected that the stern was afloat for a considerable time before it finally sank. As we have survivors who judged the stern to be afloat for 5 minutes and possibly longer after she broke it would give the structure plenty of time to turn around even after the separation. Science can not tell us that. They just make their estimations based on survivor accounts and fill in the gaps the best they can with a projected model.

When the ship listed over to port during the evacuation Lightoller ordered the passengers to the starboard side and he believed the weight of people caused the port list to ease away. Can science prove that? They can't because they do not have enough evidence to know where the ship was flooding at that moment, how many portholes were open, if doors were open or closed, and if the ship was beginning to break. They can only follow survivor accounts the same as we do and make their best judgement.


.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,364
688
248
Germany
Ignored your rant and reported you.
What? Which rant?


I don't give a damn what anything thinks of my research. If you don't like it, then don't read it. You can criticise the survivor accounts, but my opinion of them is off limits and the Moderator has already stated in the past that criticism against any member's opinions will not be tolerated. You have been reported 'again'.
Why did you post and ask questions if you don't like the answers?!
Reported 'again'? So let us see, you did not answer questions ask, come with the excuse it is what survivors said or your opinion or your theory and then starting to threaten other members who are questioning you.

So your opinion is of limits and others not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads