Ship's name on the wreck [was: I just noticed this...]


Jul 9, 2000
58,649
830
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Also, I understand why notions of raising the are fantasy, but I wonder if the mud encasing the bow could be cleared away so we cold examine her damage once and for all. That seems like a project that is at least possible.<<

Technically possible yes, but try to persuade anybody who's holding the purse strings that it's worthwhile!

Realistically, that just ain't gonna happen.
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
21
313
I recall that George Tulloch had thoughts of excavating the 60 odd feet of mud. There is a device that I feel could be modified to help in the endeavor...Pieer Valldy's (IFREMER engineer)
GRAB which is fitted with cameras and purpolsion methods.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
21
313
In his first publishing of "Discovery of the Titanic" Robert Ballard reported, what he thought was the faint outline of a "C" on the starboard bow. However when Charlie Haas was an observer aboard the Nautile in '96 they returned to the portside, where in '87 Nargeolet tediously scraped away the rust to reveal the entire T I T A N I C 18" encised letter remants...the letters were no longer visible. I am sure the acting currents helped in the process of the natural state of rustcicle action. Perhaps the "C" on the starboard side is under a different state of deteroriation?

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,649
1,144
248
Germany
If I remember right, in 2010 the name on the starboard side was partly hidden again by rusticles, but some of the letters are visible. The name of the port side is visible as the letters at the stern. I think in 2001 James Cameron was able to see some of the letters from the name Liverpool while the ROV show in 2010 all letters.
 

Scott Mills

Member
Jul 10, 2008
670
88
133
43
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
I recall that George Tulloch had thoughts of excavating the 60 odd feet of mud. There is a device that I feel could be modified to help in the endeavor...Pieer Valldy's (IFREMER engineer)
GRAB which is fitted with cameras and purpolsion methods.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA

I'm always surprised when I read stuff like this and some eccentric billionaire with a fascination with Titanic (like Cameron) hasn't offered to bank roll such an adventure.
 

moggy 1

Member
May 10, 2014
2
0
31
name letters

This debate has been going on, on the yahoo news article from the other night pertaining to Ballard. This guy is claiming the footage makes out a Y and a M on the name plate and claiming that the Titanic letters were riveted atop Olympic's.

I just dont see how this keeps goin on and on even though the strong evidence that it didnt happen.

On a side note I have to say I would like to get some high resolution images of the name plate on the bow. I think I got a hazy one showing the name plate on the stern as well as part of Liverpool.

The pic I seen had the letters M P on the sunken liner as well as titanic with 2 letters missing.also how do I put the pictures on here.I think if yous watch this link it will open your eyes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_d_GEy8lr0. go across slide to 49.50 for a few seconds and it will show yous this lettering ..After watching this video and researched some pictures I am convinced the sunken liner Titanic is the original Olympic,
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,649
1,144
248
Germany
The pic I seen had the letters M P on the sunken liner as well as titanic with 2 letters missing.also how do I put the pictures on here.I think if yous watch this link it will open your eyes.
. go across slide to 49.50 for a few seconds and it will show yous this lettering ..After watching this video and researched some pictures I am convinced the sunken liner Titanic is the original Olympic,

Oh not again!

You sure know that it is a bad computer animation????!!!!!

And by the way here is the real name on the wreck filmed in 1987 (and not the nonsense mentioned it your video).
"TITANIC NAME" in Titanic´s wreck - YouTube
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,649
1,144
248
Germany
This is the FAKE

MPtitanic-640x439.jpg
 

moggy 1

Member
May 10, 2014
2
0
31
I for one feel mortally wounded to think the wreck titanic is the original Olympic,But i have pictures of TITANIC in dock when being built and other picture of TITANIC when setting sail showing the name letters are slightly to the left when setting sail as well as the 16 prtholes as opposed to the 14 on bow when being built. Also i see the windows showing different positions as regards the spacing .I also see in another picture of the sunken liner the number on the prop of the sunken liner is that of the one that was put on the olympic. I have not taken my decision lightly but proof is proof in my eyes.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,649
1,144
248
Germany
Ok, this will be my only post about that matter as I have enough about that. Sorry but there is every week someone who comes up with the same old made up stuff.

The names during her building and her sailing are in partly different positions because it was written over on the negative.

Regarding portholes, Titanic had 14 portholes on the port side when launched, but in the following months she got 2 extra for better light and air.

B Deck windows were the same as on Olympic but by September 1911 they started to remove them on Titanic again as she was going to get larger cabins, a larger A-la-Carte Restaurant and a new Cafe Parisien. (On Olympic B Deck remained mainly an enclosed promenade, she did not get any of the suites Titanic had and which are still on the wreck and Olympic got during the large refit at the end of 1912 a Cafe Parisien.) By March 1912 Titanic got also an forward enclosed promenade on A Deck (as she does not have any because of the suites on B Deck).

Regarding the propeller blade, the wreck shows clearly the number 401 for Titanic. Olympic never got one from Titanic as they had different size and curve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,649
1,144
248
Germany
Jul 9, 2000
58,649
830
563
Easley South Carolina
>>I have not taken my decision lightly but proof is proof in my eyes. <<

No it's not. If you had any idea what's involved in shipfitting, conversions, repairs and shipbuilding, you would know full well that changes get made to ships all the time. Designs are rarely static. They're always changing. If you had done some real research, you would also know that photos of Olympic and Titanic get used interchangeably, with one being confused for another so often, that it's not even funny.

The whole ship switch conspiracy theory is a fraud with NO valid historical basis and Gardiner...the guy who invented it out of nothing in the first place...admitted as much in his first book on the subject right at the very end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TitanicNerd

Member
Jan 18, 2014
220
1
83
Titanic got her enclosed promenade Feb 1912. Not March 1912. Feb 14th, 1912 to be correct. Yeah, Titanic's B Deck windows were changed and her 2nd class B Deck Promenade was made smaller in Sep 1911.
 

PRR5406

Member
Jun 9, 2016
183
71
93
70
Maine
Ye gods, people. You need to exercise some self-discipline regarding a rather dumb "controversy", which is no controversy at all. Have robot take a brush and sweep away the rusticles to reveal the name "Titanic". There is no reason the have to go to that length. The ship architecture, the stories, the humans involved, the fact "Olympic" plied the Atlantic for a quarter century, all add up. The sinking of the "Titanic" has enough factual drama without conjuring foolishness.
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
38
Calvin-

It could be plate damage, but considering that it slammed onto the ocean floor, I'm wondering if it's not just regular deformation. It sort of appears to jut outward a bit.
It is not slammed damage. If you want to see Slam damage look at the Britannic site. There you will see evidence of what happens when an Olympic class ships slams head first into the ocean floor at approximately 25 miles per hour. If the Titanic into the ocean bottom at 25 to 35 miles per hour then the bow would be non-existent. If that were the case then the INFREMER scans of the bow below the silt would reveal nothing but of course are now being lauded as the iceberg damage whereas the rest of the damage on the hall that doesn't conform to known theories of how the ship sank and broke up are being called "impact damage".

I would like to suggest that has the Titanic went deeper into the Atlantic she slowed down and touch the bottom like a feather would touch the ground falling from the sky. To cite as a source of evidence Bruce Ismay stateroom and find China and other decorations still sitting on the mantle of the fireplace. Also if the bow drifted two and a half miles off course while full of water and double its own weight then why would pieces of the keel which are flat fall straight down? That part doesn't make sense because if the kill plates are flat they should catch water and be drifted by the water. The only way Titanic's bow wouldd drift 2 and 1/2 miles away from the scene of the crime is if she was falling very very slowly.

From all of the documentaries I have watched the one thing that all of them have said is that the lower you go in the Atlantic the higher the pressure becomes to a point that even the smallest sliver in a glass porthole wouldd instantly implode the submersible. It also takes them 2 hours to get to the bottom and they have ballast to overcome the air inside. To say that the Titanic hit the ground in 5 to 10 minutes is a guess at best. Being that the interior of the ship was filled with water I would like to think that as it got lower it slow down because of that water and if you've ever been in a pool then you know that it feels like you're suspended. I think astronauts have been put into pool to simulate moving around in space. I said I think because I do not know so someone on here does know please inform me.

If we can believe that the INFREMER images are a true representation of the damage Titanic suffered on the night of the sinking, then the bow itself on the seafloor is a exact representation of the stresses on the hull at the time she was on the surface during The Break-Up.

If that is the case then the Keel broke first and that big bulge sticking out of the side of the ship byy number two Boiler Room followed by the dilapidated stretched in Warren skin along either side heading towards the boat deck and then the collapse of the decks after number 2 funnel show that the ship broke by collapsing on itself like a building does when the supports give out on the bottom and it's been demolished.

If you look at construction photos the ribs of the Titanic were attached to the top of the keel not along the sides which means the Keel is more akin to a foundation and when foundations go so do walls and the sides of the Titanic were like walls. So if you look at the rear of the bow section in the terms that I am offering then you will see that the breakup was a convoluted mess and it works perfectly with how the describers saw it. A few said they saw the bow break away and dive down, other said they saw the bow momentarily rise before plunging down. It all happened so quickly that it is possible but if you look at the collapse decks between the second and third funnel then it is obvious that the ship broke its back there and then pulled down bringing the third funnel uptake with it which then cause the break above the 25th frame which is behind the third funnel.

Everything we need is right there there is nothing left to find if you look at the wreck. The fact that the ship sank with a 10 degree list to port is proven because the starboard side of the sterns hull is completely blown off while the port side is still hanging from the superstructure down but separated from the keel. That shows that the stern was still attached to the bow but the survivors could not see the bow because the entire middle of the ship between the second and third funnel had collapsed just after the Lights Went Out so they couldn't see it anymore. As the stern went down the water pressure kept building against the air pressure still trapped inside the aft end while the structure was twisting and bending itself apart is proven by the condition of the side plates on the bow section at the break.

When the stern finally blew away was when the entire middle exploded like an implosion hence why the skin of the stern is completely blown off and the poop rolled. The third funnel uptake had already been broken away from the decks during the break up on Surface and it was probably blown off when the stern exploded away and then spiraled to the bottom rudder first.

If you think about it it does work because the survivors testified that the stern seem to settle into the water but not nearly 5 minutes maybe no more than 30 seconds because I can tell you from my own experience when I think something is been 5 minutes it's really only been 30 seconds especially when you're just sitting there staring at a light. Anyways the stern settles at a 10 degree list to port and then it appears to lift high into the air, almost perpendicular, before being forced down by the bow that is still attached at the keel and along the sides. Because the center of the ship collapsed and the bow took a dive it would naturally pull the stern back into the air before sucking it under and when the ship imploded that's when the final separation took place.

If you read the testimonies of the survivors they said the ship broke, some said clear into other said they were certain the ship broke even if they didn't see it. It is easy to think the ship broken to when the bow disappears and the stern does not but the stern cannot rides into the air by the way of the engines alone, it has to be pulled down on a fulcrum which is still the rest of the body the Titanic. The keel would not be able to do that either only where the ship was still attached below the waterline along the sides.

Also if any of you are ever curious as to what was in the Harland and Wolff archives concerning their fears of the Olympic Class Liners and their durability all one has to look at is a 1913 refit of RMS Olympic. The rise and bulkheads indicate not just safety as is popularly told but also the designers fear of weakness in the hull. If you look at the bulkhead right along the 25th frame it goes right up to the strength deck which is a very weird place to suddenly raise the bulkhead in the middle of the ship. Isn't that where the Titanic broke in half? Also if you look at the bulkhead in front of Boiler Room 6 they rose that too to the strength deck. If you look at the weeck on the bottom of the ocean you will see what Everyone likes to call impact damage right between Boiler Room 6 and hold 3. I contend that the bow was incapable of handling for compartment full of water and broke which is probably one of the internal explosions that survivors recalled hearing. When the bow broke and hogged collapsed the rest of the Titanic's Keel, setting off a chain reaction of events that I have described above. Also if you look at the Olympic 1913 refit you will see another sudden increase of the bulkhead do the strength stack right underneath the forward expansion joint. Then there is one more right at the stern that goes to the strength deck in between the after engine rooms. What the designers had discovered and had known all along was that the ship was weak around the Expansion Joints and also where the main body of the hall had the curve into the bow and the stern. They knew they needed to strengthen those areas and they did it by raising the water tight bulkheads in those areas.

Someone earlier had asked why the Britannic did not break when she went down and that is because she had the same bulkheads incorporated into her design as the RMS Olympic. When the Olympic struck that submarine in World War 1 and then plowed through the Nantucket Lightship in 1925, it was bulkhead d that kept the ship from vibrating itself apart like the Titanic did when she ran aground on the iceberg. It was extra bracing that was desperately needed so when the vibration came through the Keel it would then go up the bulkhead and out the sides instead of down the center of the keel.

More proof positive that the bow of the Titanic was weak along with the rest of the Olympic class was how the bow of the Britannic broke when she hit the bottom. Her Bell broken half very cleanly right in front of Bulkhead d. Someone can say it all that was the torpedo damage but I highly doubt that they broke and they're not bulging out words or words from an explosion from a mine or a torpedo.

I apologize for the long post but I have been reading this forum for the last 2 weeks and everyone keeps arguing against each other about The Break-Up and the damage and I even feel the experts don't get it right because they make too many assumptions instead of looking at the evidence on the seafloor. The Titanic tells us what happens she wants us to know but we keep fighting it. The bulkhead diagram of the RMS Olympic in the way the Britannic sank and held together and broke at the bowel also shows was Harland and Wolff knew after the tragedy.

This is my first post and I hope it is well received but I know it will be debated.

Travis
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
38
First thing I have to comment on, what resolution is the bow composition image you have in? Ive been trying to find a high resolution one to see details but can only find these small low quality ones.

Now on the comment about the damage, even without the box it appears to be a section of hull plates that seperated on the top edge. Question is though is this caused by the iceberg or caused by the collision with the ocean floor.

I am also curious about the heigth the damage is. I cant remember the exacts but I want to say 2 feet estimated heigth above the stokehold plates and I have this heigth to scale marked on high resolution profile blueprints ive been working on and comparing your high resolution image to mine I would have to say the heigth is about right. The heigth appears to be about 4 feet estimated above the deck plates where I have my diagram showing the damage being about 2 feet above the plates. I would have to verify this by pulling out my diagram specs to get accurate measurements and then double check the heigth claimed I might have made an error.

But the more I look at this I am inclined to say this is most likely buckled hull plates from the collision with the iceberg. The question now is, is the same damage found on the other side. If so then no matter how accurate this is to what was described by survivors you would have to throw it out as inconclusive.
I think what you are seeing with the hull plates bulging outwards is not Iceberg damage by direct Collision but when the Titanic grounded on a shelf underneath the water that was a pressure release. There is no impact with the ocean floor damage or else the Titanic would look a lot like the Britannic in the bows which shows the front end of the Britannic crumpled-up and wrinkled unlike the Titanic where her bow is intact including below the sand where researchers were able to use sonar to discover the separation in the seams. Maybe someday the sonar Imaging can be improved so we can see if the hall plates are pushed in words or are pops out words and if they are pop outwards that as evidence of grounding.
 

IanMcD

Member
Jun 9, 2013
47
10
58
Poulsbo, WA
Were the letters of the nameplate simply painted on or were they raised letters that were welded or bolted onto the hull?

In theory, I suppose a submersible could go down to the wreck with a brush like the spinning ones you would see in a carwash to gently brush the rusticles to reveal the letters. Or is that a ridiculous idea? I think Robert Ballard has suggested doing something like that to help preserve the hull but it would be a time-consuming and costly venture.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads