The Ship That Never Sank a new thread needs your input

Aug 11, 2008
45
0
36
Haha...ok then..I will take his advice then. It was just a gut feeling i had anyway. By the way, do you guys know where i can get a Titanic r/c model for cheap?? I've been dying to get one of those. I have seen a video on youtube.com of a guy with a titanic model with working steam, running propellers and lights and ever since I have been dying to get one....
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
Jorge,

It really helps to be able to source your material properly, which is why you can trust what Mark Baber has written. At least in "The Riddle of the Titanic" Gardiner supplies footnotes that allow anyone with half a brain to go to the original source and see that he (Gardiner) used only the parts of the source materials that he wanted to. I can't speak as to whether "The Ship That Never Sank" has proper footnotes as well, but if it does, take the time to research back to the source materials through each point and have the satisfaction of yourself proving Gardiner wrong on his mistaken theory.
 
Aug 11, 2008
45
0
36
Yeah thanks a lot i really needed it. And int my opinion the workers and sailors of the Titanic weren't that experience as i could have seen. The guy who would take care of the telegraph should have sent the warnings of the iceberg to the captain that the Californian was sending them instead of rudely telling them to shut up, and i think that the Titanic should have made a head-on collision with the iceberg that way only one of the compartments could be flooded and still make the trip. And if they were to to a complete left to avoid the berg then they should have went full speed rather then just putting it on reverse, that would just pull the iceberg closer to it and have it to ram against the iceberg...
 

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
1
146
quote:

The grounding was on 4 April. She was unable to leave after she was inspected on 5 April due to weather. She finally left on the 7th, three days after she was originally ready to go. Sources: The New York Times, 5 and 6 March 1912;
shock.gif
huh.gif


--Jim​
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
373
283
Easley South Carolina
>>And int my opinion the workers and sailors of the Titanic weren't that experience as i could have seen.<<

They weren't? You might want to start checking the biographies. A substantial number of these people had been at sea for nearly all their working lives. The issue was one of training to deal with specific emergencies and there at least, they were on the low end of the learning curve.

>>The guy who would take care of the telegraph should have sent the warnings of the iceberg to the captain that the Californian was sending them instead of rudely telling them to shut up<<

And if the Californian's operator had addressed his message as a master service message, which formally requires the Captain's attention, it might have happened that way. That Mr. Evans didn't do it that way, but simply broke in to the middle of an outgoing message and blasting the Titanic's eardrums out is what got him the rude response.

It wouldn't have really added that much to what was already known in any event. There were warnings that reached the bridge and the watch. Enough so that they knew when they would be in the region of ice, and the watch was given special instructions to be on the lookout for ice.

Bottom line: They knew.

>>and i think that the Titanic should have made a head-on collision with the iceberg that way only one of the compartments could be flooded and still make the trip.<<

Would it have? Edward Wilding thought the ship would have survived but also that the bow would have been punched in for a substantial distance. More then just one compartment.

>>And if they were to to a complete left to avoid the berg then they should have went full speed rather then just putting it on reverse, that would just pull the iceberg closer to it and have it to ram against the iceberg...<<

Huh??? On the matter of reversal, it's questionable to say the least that it ever even happened. If Dillon and Scott are correct, no engine reversal happened until after the accident.

As to the rest, this was kicked around at the British Inquiry and dismissed as a bad idea. Might I suggest that instead of getting hung up on the myth, that you start persuing primary source material so you can get a better sense not only of what really happened, but also how it was understood and percieved at the time. You can start with the inquiry transcripts themselves at http://www.titanicinquiry.org/
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,229
667
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Received this advert from Amazon.co.uk:

quote:

Greetings from Amazon.co.uk:
We've noticed that customers who have purchased or rated Titanic and the Mystery Ship by Senan Molony have also purchased Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank? by Robin Gardiner. For this reason, you might like to know that Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank? will be released on 2 October 2008. You can pre-order yours for just £6.59 (34% off the RRP) by following the link below...
Conspiracy theories and mystery ships, even when proven untrue, sells books.​
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
373
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Conspiracy theories and mystery ships, even when proven untrue, sells books.<<

I'll take the mystery ships since they at least deal with something that a reasonable person just might confuse for the real history. Besides, it's not as if any such would take away from the Californian's accountability. It remains regardless.

Conspiracy theories I leave to the nutters who wear the tinfoil beanies!