1. Welcome to Encyclopedia Titanica
    or subscribe for unlimited access to ET! You can also login with , or !
    Dismiss Notice

Superior mirage and the Californian

Discussion in 'Distance and Bearing' started by DarrenC, Dec 27, 2018.

  1. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Guest

    I believe the Titanic may have struck the spur of the iceberg as a number of survivors felt her listing over to port during the collision and immediately after, and they felt the ice scraping underneath and survivors like Mr. Woolner said he could feel the ice passing underneath the smoking room and Mr. Ray said the collision felt like a movement that shunted him backward and forward as the ship's bottom slid over the ice, and this motion possibly slowed down the ship rapidly as a number of survivors said they went on deck and saw the iceberg they noticed the ship was almost stopped dead in the water, and QM Olliver believed the force of the impact against her bottom may have rapidly slowed down the forward momentum of the ship. After the collision a number of survivors went on deck to see what had happened and they saw a long spur of the iceberg jutting out a long distance like parallel ribs poking just above the surface. e.g.

    Mr. Hyman
    "I heard some of the sailors talking and heard them say that the ship had struck a spur of the iceberg that jutted out a long distance, and had slid upon it, hurting her keel."

    Marian Thayer
    "I saw what looked like a number of long, black ribs, apparently floating nearly level with the surface of the water, parallel with each other, and the side of the ship, but separated from each other by two or three feet of water, the nearest one being probably twenty feet from the ship, and they extended from near the bow to about amidship. I saw no high iceberg at the time."

    "I fancied seeing this long-lying growler."
    "It looked to me as if it was very, very low."
    "Just a small black mass not rising very high out of the water."
    "Very, very low lying.......Very, very low in the water."

    Captain Moore of the Mount Temple believed the Titanic may have struck a long spur:

    "In some cases you may get close to them; in others they have long spurs running underneath the water. In daytime in clear water you can see the spurs, because they show quite green under the water. Of course, my orders to my officers are to give them a wide berth; not take any chances whatever." "My theory would be that she was going along and touched one of those large spurs from an iceberg. There are spurs projecting out beneath the water, and they are very sharp and pointed. They are like a jagged rock. My idea is that she struck one of those on her bilge, and that she ran along that, and that opened up her plates, the lining of her plates, and the water came in."
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2019
  2. It's been fun just hanging around and reading all these posts for the last few days without adding my own 2 cents worth. I'm sue some people were happy about that. However, a few thoughts to add to the fray.

    Jim said:
    >>A flash is not a rocket or even a socket signal and Stone would never have seen a flash in isolation since both would be visible for some considerable time as a group of bright stars in a cluster descending slowly. Stone did not see anything like that at 00-45 am or immediately after that. If you do not understand that, then it cannot be helped..<<
    However, Stone wrote to Lord:
    "I reported seeing these lights in the sky in the direction of the other steamer which appeared to me to be white rockets." So it seems they more than flashes of light.
  3. Regarding all this hypothesizing that the ship struck the berg with her starboard prop which caused the vessel to veer to the right and then head north, I pose the following two questions:
    1. Why was it not reported that the ship struck the berg again well after the initial iceberg strikes took place over the course of a very few seconds? Why didn't someone like Rowe see, and more importantly, feel the ship strike as the berg was passing aft?
    2. If the ship struck the berg near the stern with her propeller, then why is that propeller still on the vessel appearing intact at the wreck?

    There is one and only one reason for the vessel turning to starboard with her stern seen falling away from the berg as if the vessel was turning to make a circle around it.
  4. Jim Currie

    Jim Currie Member

    I agree the first part, Sam but not your "one and only" claim.

    We have evidence that the ship broke free of the ice in the region of the forward end of boiler room 5, We also have eye witness testimony that it was at least 50 feet out from the ship side when opposite cabin E50 amidship.

    As I have pointed out to you, ad nauseum, the moment the bow touched that iceberg at or near to the forward collision bulkhead, all normal turning action was removed. The ship would have reacted to contact with the iceberg as though the latter was an immoveable object. The point of contact would become the dominating pivot position. The C of G of the ship would wish to continue its pre-collision path of travel but would be directly influenced by the position of the point of contact, The result would be a turning moment toward the point of contact. This would result in the ship's side moving suddenly away from the icberg. However, as the bow cleared into still water beyond the iceberg, and the turning effort was reinstated, the stern would resume it's movement back toward the iceberg. This would increase the moment contact with the ice was broken.
  5. I wouldn't put too much trust on someone's subjective estimate of how far this wall of ice appeared to be by looking though a porthole. There is direct evidence that the berg was very close to the side of the ship as it passed by cabin E-25 (Flynn's) since ice came through an open porthole there. Cabin E-50 was only about 110 ft aft of E-25. There is no way that ship's side move off by 50 ft in the transverse direction in the 4 seconds or thereabouts that it would take the berg to have moved aft from E-25 to E-50 and then came back again to get the windows on the Cafe Parisian wet. Otherwise, I don't disagree too much about the point you are making regarding the interaction between hull and ice. My comment had more to do with what happened after the berg passed aft of the vessel.
  6. Jim Currie

    Jim Currie Member

    I agree with you about subjective evidence. However, also consider the following...
    The last known point of contact on the hull was at or near to Frame No. +59...177 feet forward of E25 and 48 feet forward of C24.
    If the iceberg and ship lost contact at Frame No.+58 how was it possible for ice to be deposited on a porthole 48 feet astern of it?
    Additionally, Hichens said that when he looked at his compass, the heading had changed by 2 points in a matter of seconds. However, he does not say in which direction and since the ship was turning to the left, we assume he meant in that direction and we rightly exclaim "nonsense!".

    You know as well as I do that moving at the speed of 22.5 knots and hitting an immovable obejct...even a glancing blow would have a very sudden effect.
    Would it surprise you to know that at the iceberg being a distance off of 50 feet midship closely represents a very quick swing of almost exactly 2 points to starboard, not port.?

    Give it serious thought.
  7. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Guest

    But there is no evidence which supports the theory that the starboard blade is there. It can't be seen. No scarring on the sea floor, or mound of sand driven up by its presence. All we can see is a huge big gap, which indicates the blade must have broken off.




    A large blade was discovered in the region where the ship struck the iceberg (taking into account the distance the ship had drifted before going down). The loss of a blade would cause a vibration under Quartermaster Rowe's feet. This is what he felt because he thought the engines were going full speed astern when he saw the iceberg passing by. The engines were not going full speed astern when the iceberg passed the stern. He did not see the iceberg after it passed the stern as he immediately turned and pulled in the log line and read what it said. A number of survivors saw the iceberg breaking apart as it passed by. This would produce a considerable amount of hazardous ice which would swirl into the starboard propeller, and a number of survivors believed they had lost a blade, and some of them had experienced it before e.g. on the Olympic, and some felt a twisting motion of the ship which correlates with the accounts on the Olympic as they felt the ship twist in the same manner when she lost a blade.

    I believe there are plenty of dots which indicate that she lost a blade, and not enough to believe she didn't. Therefore Mila is quite correct that the loss of her blade would allow the ship to turn northwards with greater ease with the assistance of the hard turn right on the helm.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2019
  8. The blade is buried.

    Senator BURTON. Do you think the propeller hit the ice? Did you feel any jolt like the propeller hitting the ice?
    Mr. ROWE. No, sir.
  9. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Guest

    And did Rowe believe the engines were going full speed astern at that same time (violent rumble under his feet on the starboard side of the poop deck).


    Jane Hoyt
    "We were roused by a noise which seemed to indicate that the engines of the ship had reversed. I looked out of the stateroom window and saw something white passing by."

    May Futrelle
    "I felt a shock and a kind of shiver of the ship. It was so slight that it did not disturb anything but I sat up in bed. I heard the engines pounding below reversing. For about twenty seconds, I should say, this pounding continued. Then followed another shock, scarcely heavier than the first. Two distinct shocks."

    Joseph Scarrott
    "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." He went on deck afterwards and saw the stern swinging away from the iceberg.

    Mr. Ismay
    "I really thought what had happened, was we had lost a blade of the propeller."

    Mr. Wheelton
    "It felt as if it was the dropping of a propeller."

    Mr. Crowe
    "I thought one of the propellers had been broken off."

    Mr. Wheat
    "I thought she had cast one of her propeller blades. It sounded to me like that."
    Q - Have you been on a ship where that has happened?"
    A - Yes
    Q - And you thought it was that?
    A - Yes, I thought it was the same thing.

    2nd officer Lightoller
    "It was a feeling as if she may have hit something with her propellers, and on second thoughts I thought perhaps she have struck some obsruction with her propeller and stripped the blades off. It flashed through my mind that possibly it was a piece of wreckage or something. A piece of ice had been struck by a propeller blade which might have given a similar feeling to the ship."

    Mr. Beesley
    "Like a flash it came to me. We have dropped a propeller blade."

    Mr. Silverthorne
    "I jumped to my feet, remarking to one of the card players who had crossed with me on the Olympic when we had lost one of the blades from a propeller. I remarked that I guessed, we had lost another propeller."

    Mr. Burke
    "I thought probably she had dropped her propeller."

    Mr. Keen
    "It seemed to be nothing worse than a blade falling from a propeller."

    Mr. Witter
    "I thought she dropped a blade from the propeller."

    Mr. Ward
    "I thought at first it was the propeller gone, the way she went."

    Mr. Marechal
    "We heard a violent noise. Similar to that produced by a screw racing."

    Mr. Burgess
    "There goes a blade!"

    Mr. Behr
    "My first thought was that we had broken a shaft."

    Mr. Johnson
    "We thought she had lost her wheel or something, and somebody passed the remark, "another Belfast trip."
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2019

  10. Which is not included in his 1912 sworn testimony!

    You can post quotes of people mentioning that she lost a blade as you like, it does not chance anything to the fact that the blade is buried. The "blade" Jack Grimm found does not belong to a Olympic Class ship.
  11. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Guest

    He was not asked what the engines were doing and therefore did not mention it at the Inquiry. Do you have proof that the blade is buried and that the irregular gap that can be seen is normal, and that no scarring and no mount of sand would build up, and do you have proof that the blade found by Jack Grimm was not from an OIympic class ship? Without convincing proof I can't believe the blade is still mounted to the propeller.
  12. We already had that discussion. I do not see any reason to go over it again because you are posting it for the 5th or 6th time.

    For loosing a blade as you claim, the iceberg had to hit the propeller/blade and there should have been a "shock" at that moment. Rowe was clear the ice did not hit it! You have 0 proof. And as for Grimm, the scientist who were with him believed it was a rock. Look it up his documentary about that expedition. And comparing that Grimm image with Olympic blades from 1911 the difference is quite easy to see.

    And here is a good proof why the blade is not visible.
  13. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Guest

    Rowe thought the engines were going full astern. There is 0 proof that they were. It should stand to reason that what he was feeling was not the engines reversing but was in fact the blade being damaged and being thrown off. That simulated image is not accurate as the bolts are not even visible and as the photos I presented above shows the bolts were very close to each other blade and we can see very clearly that the gap is significantly larger where the missing blade's bolts should be, with no disturbance to the sand, no mound of sand driven up, and no scarring of the sand adjacent to the propeller. There is 0 evidence that the blade is there. Jack Grimm believed he discovered a blade. I have seen the footage and it clearly in my judgment looks like a large blade and in their study they concluded that it belonged to a large passenger ship. The location of the blade also correlates to the direction the current was moving which draws an arrow directly to the wreck, and the debris field, lifeboats and bodies. They were all carried along by the same force. I am convinced that the blade is not on the wreck, but is where Jack Grimm found it.
  14. Rob Lawes

    Rob Lawes Member

    Except Aaron, in your "highly accurate" picture you show above. In the bottom pair, if you look at the left picture (the black and white picture) the blades are (starting at the 9 O'Clock position, front to back, front to back, front to back as you go around clockwise. In your mock up photo to the right of that, starting at the same 9 O'clock position, you have the blades going, back to front, front to back on your mock up, then back to front again. You have rotated your mock up blade through 180 degrees to make it appear that the front of the blade would be above the sand line.

    So now who has the accurate picture?

    edit: and looking at it again, you have transposed the blades in ALL of your examples so they are not accurate at all.
  15. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Guest

    I presented the pictures In relation to the gap. I am focusing on the bolts that secured the blades in place and the distance between each blade. The propellers can be turned any way they wish, it is immaterial as I just wanted to present and compare the accurate 'distance' between each blade and how close the bolts were to each other by using photos taken at various angles to demonstrate how close they were.



    So far there has been no convincing evidence to suggest the blade is there. The gap on the left is nothing like the gap on the right. Without doubt I believe the blade is not bolted to the propeller. Everybody is free to examine and come to their own conclusions, but I believe the matter won't be resolved until a full examination of the sea floor around the stern is made.

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2019
  16. Aside that you now contradict yourself, Dillon & Scott both stated that the engines were going slow astern after the collision. No one mentioned something strange.
  17. That is because you are comparing Titanic's propeller with Olympic's 1911. As already pointed out to you several times, the pitch & curves were different on Titanic (a proof is the document about the propellers from H&W) so your comparison is highly flawed.
  18. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Guest

    No, I was referring to the distance between each blade. Regardless of what ship the b&w photo came from. The irregular gap seen on one side of the starboard propeller is a strong indication that the blade is missing, especially when compared to the other side of the starboard propeller.



    This is what we should see (left) and this is what we actually see (right)


    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2019
  19. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Guest

    No, I didn't contradict myself. Dillon and Scott did not see or feel the engines going full speed astern despite being feet away from them below decks. Which confirms that the sensation Rowe felt on the poop deck (strong vibration under his feet as the iceberg passed the stern) had nothing to do with the engines and was most likely in my opinion the effect of the blade coming off which created the strong vibration which made him and others mistakenly believe the engines were going full speed astern as the iceberg passed the stern.

    We can go around in circles for years. It isn't going to change my opinion on the evidence that I have read and seen. I am convinced the blade is not there. You are convinced it is still there. As Mark Baber said we can all agree to disagree.

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2019
  20. No it is not what we should see, it is what YOU are claiming.