Screams Came from Floating Stern?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Aaron_2016

Former Member
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. It would mean the ship was broken in two.


.
 
What is this mysterious Lightoller report about the ship turning when he was sucked underwater (and other claims). Why is it not in his other reports or his book?!
 

Aaron_2016

Former Member
His account can be found in several Titanic books by Logan Marshall. e.g. Sinking of the Titanic and Great Sea Disasters. Found this passage on ebooks. Note: Lightoller does not state that it was the first funnel.



TitanicLightoller.PNG


.
 
Note, he stated it here;

Now, the sinking of a great ship like the Titanic, there was also the fear of suction to overcome, and at this time the forward funnel fell, throwing the boat, myself, and other survivors about twenty feet clear of the ship, so that of suction we felt nothing.
Christian Science Sentinel, October 1912

As well as in other reports, at the Inquiry and in his book.
 
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.
 
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: 2 users
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:
"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 users

Aaron_2016

Former Member
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.


.
 

Aaron_2016

Former Member
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
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: 2 users
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:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Aaron_2016

Former Member
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:
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:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top