The Crows Nest


Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,209
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
Odd though isn't it, how the crows nest was attached to the foremast for 73 years and within 3 years of the wreck being found, it has collapsed.

By the way, I recall reading that on the first 1985 Ballard expedition, Argo, or maybe Angus was towed over the wreck and hit something at the height of C deck or above. Is this true?

Back to my original request; if anyone has any evidence, pro-or-con that the crows nest collapsed due to the 1987 expedition, please let me know!
yes, he hit the Cranes, described in "Discovery of the Titanic", or the crane rigging.
 

Eric Paddon

Member
Jun 4, 2002
571
48
193
After 17 years and a change of at least three computers since then, I no longer have the images as I did then. I can only assume they are the same two images you can see on Paul Lee's website on this page.


It's been years since I studied this issue with any depth, but Paul I notice is saying it's the crows nest phone when my understanding was that it was found in the same general debris area with the stern docking bridge equipment thus lending credence it was that phone. Whatever the case the old argument from long ago that a phone was yanked from the crows nest causing it collapse (which is what a certain author claimed in print) is long discredited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,209
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
After 17 years and a change of at least three computers since then, I no longer have the images as I did then. I can only assume they are the same two images you can see on Paul Lee's website on this page.


It's been years since I studied this issue with any depth, but Paul I notice is saying it's the crows nest phone when my understanding was that it was found in the same general debris area with the stern docking bridge equipment thus lending credence it was that phone. Whatever the case the old argument from long ago that a phone was yanked from the crows nest causing it collapse (which is what a certain author claimed in print) is long discredited.
oh, that's ok. Thank you anyway, Eric! I wonder why Dr. Lee isn't active anymore
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
It's been years since I studied this issue with any depth, but Paul I notice is saying it's the crows nest phone when my understanding was that it was found in the same general debris area with the stern docking bridge equipment thus lending credence it was that phone.

That was the phone from the docking bridge and if I remember right it was without it's box. They recovered several instruments from the docking bridge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,209
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
After 17 years and a change of at least three computers since then, I no longer have the images as I did then. I can only assume they are the same two images you can see on Paul Lee's website on this page.


It's been years since I studied this issue with any depth, but Paul I notice is saying it's the crows nest phone when my understanding was that it was found in the same general debris area with the stern docking bridge equipment thus lending credence it was that phone. Whatever the case the old argument from long ago that a phone was yanked from the crows nest causing it collapse (which is what a certain author claimed in print) is long discredited.
Hi Eric. I believe I may of found the Crows Nest, on B-Deck. I can’t be sure, however.

1602429376567.jpeg



1602429469166.jpeg
 

Mike Bull2019

Member
Oct 8, 2019
132
142
88
UK
The crows nest was approximately centre fore/aft of the well deck while still attached to the fallen mast; how is it supposed to have made it aft and BEHIND the B Deck bulwark?!
 

Mike Bull2019

Member
Oct 8, 2019
132
142
88
UK
Hello Mike.

Here is a section of a sea bed photograph of the forward end of Titanic. and my rough idea of what happened,View attachment 50208
View attachment 50209
Yeah, I wasn't referring to how the mast/nest first fell, but rather to Cam's claim to have seen the remains way back on B deck!

I've wondered to what (if any) degree the radio aerials pulled on the masts as the ship separated- did they contribute to a rearwards yank on the foremast, perhaps..? And if the bow was dropping down and the stern was rolling to port as some suggest, that could perhaps even account for the mast leaning over to port, instead of being forced straight backwards.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,209
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
Yeah, I wasn't referring to how the mast/nest first fell, but rather to Cam's claim to have seen the remains way back on B deck!

I've wondered to what (if any) degree the radio aerials pulled on the masts as the ship separated- did they contribute to a rearwards yank on the foremast, perhaps..? And if the bow was dropping down and the stern was rolling to port as some suggest, that could perhaps even account for the mast leaning over to port, instead of being forced straight backwards.
Possibly, perhaps, the Bow didn't return to an even keel yet, that would explain the mast lying to port. Its possible the mast "bashed around a bit" as well, smashing the Wheelhouse and bridge.

I didn't say definitely, I said possibly those are the remains of the Nest. That could be remains from the Bridge or the squashed A-Deck promenade. I am just inclined to believe it, that's all.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads