Titanic Myths, Titanic Truths


Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,514
928
388
65
Quite right, it doesn't. That said, it can also open up avenues never explored. They may not pan out but it never hurts to put them to the test. If it holds up, you learn something new and if not, you know for sure what isn't so.

It's a win either way.

The real trick is to avoid the pitfall of falling in love with your own hypothesis and we're all vulnerable that.
I agree with the highlighted part and it seems some do that more than others.

Regards this and some other books coming up with controversial theories, I did buy and read them before considering what I felt about them. If you follow this thread from the start, you can see that I did show an interest at first and bought the book. But after reading it, I was simply not able to accept Mr Brown's hypothesis.

Digressing a bit, there is one other example called The Man Who Fell From The Sky by William Norris. It is about the mysterious death of the Belgian financier Alfred Loewenstein, another subject that I am interested in. A lot of people felt that the conclusions in the book were ridiculous and I was one of them.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,131
483
158
16
Maryland, USA
Been reading this book, I like it, its super interesting! But I have questions about a couple things.

1. The Firemen's passage.
Capt. Brown states that the Inquiry decided that the firemen's passage flooded and was punctured by the iceberg. He brings up a great point that water was swirling around the base by 12:00 on April 15th. If it was was punctured by the iceberg, why would it be slowly flooding, especially considering how Boiler Room 6 flooded, and being a smaller room than that Boiler Room.
Another thing, which Capt. Brown brought up, is that the Firemen's passage is in a casing, between the two spaces on that deck. How does the iceberg punch through multiple feet, through the starboard Tanktop hold? I agree with his statement that it flooded after the collision.

2. Boiler Room 5's "Bulkhead Collapse"
He also states that he thinks that while working the pipes, (I do not have the book with me at the moment), he believes that Barrett, or someone else in the room, accidentally activated a pipe, and that pipe discharged water into Boiler Room 5, convincingly enough to have Barrett believe the bulkhead collapse. His evidence to back this up is that Shephard broke his leg, and so the person who absolutely knew what he was doing was out of commission. Is this possible that Barrett made this big mistake? I personally say no, because Harvey (I think) went to go get Shephard but both of them did not survive, meaning something did collapse. (although probably a coal bunker?)

3. Titanic did not Hard a'starboard
In the book, they did not try to avoid it, but instead turned shortly before to continue to make a wide turn 'round the Ice field, which put the iceberg barely off to the starboard side. Then when the Titanic spotted the iceberg, Hichens had the helm hard over, but to correct the course, he starts to turn to port, which caused the Titanic to hit the iceberg, but mostly ride over the iceberg, including, in his words, "going up and over" the iceberg. On top of that, he believes that the sideswipe damage did not affect the hull, but it was mostly the grounding. I personally don't agree, but does it have any merit?

4. the abandoning of Boiler Room No. 6 was a big mistake
the last claim (I am only halfway through the book, and this was the last major truth I had read.) is that they were mistaken in that Boiler Room 6 was done for, and doomed the ship by abandoning it. And when they went to go back later, the water was already 10+ feet above the tanktop. Was there any chance of saving the Boiler Room, perhaps if they had stayed a little longer?

Sorry for the long questions, this had been bothering me since I read it
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
720
401
108
Glasgow, Scotland
Been reading this book, I like it, its super interesting! But I have questions about a couple things.

1. The Firemen's passage.
Capt. Brown states that the Inquiry decided that the firemen's passage flooded and was punctured by the iceberg. He brings up a great point that water was swirling around the base by 12:00 on April 15th. If it was was punctured by the iceberg, why would it be slowly flooding, especially considering how Boiler Room 6 flooded, and being a smaller room than that Boiler Room.
Another thing, which Capt. Brown brought up, is that the Firemen's passage is in a casing, between the two spaces on that deck. How does the iceberg punch through multiple feet, through the starboard Tanktop hold? I agree with his statement that it flooded after the collision.

2. Boiler Room 5's "Bulkhead Collapse"
He also states that he thinks that while working the pipes, (I do not have the book with me at the moment), he believes that Barrett, or someone else in the room, accidentally activated a pipe, and that pipe discharged water into Boiler Room 5, convincingly enough to have Barrett believe the bulkhead collapse. His evidence to back this up is that Shephard broke his leg, and so the person who absolutely knew what he was doing was out of commission. Is this possible that Barrett made this big mistake? I personally say no, because Harvey (I think) went to go get Shephard but both of them did not survive, meaning something did collapse. (although probably a coal bunker?)

3. Titanic did not Hard a'starboard
In the book, they did not try to avoid it, but instead turned shortly before to continue to make a wide turn 'round the Ice field, which put the iceberg barely off to the starboard side. Then when the Titanic spotted the iceberg, Hichens had the helm hard over, but to correct the course, he starts to turn to port, which caused the Titanic to hit the iceberg, but mostly ride over the iceberg, including, in his words, "going up and over" the iceberg. On top of that, he believes that the sideswipe damage did not affect the hull, but it was mostly the grounding. I personally don't agree, but does it have any merit?

4. the abandoning of Boiler Room No. 6 was a big mistake
the last claim (I am only halfway through the book, and this was the last major truth I had read.) is that they were mistaken in that Boiler Room 6 was done for, and doomed the ship by abandoning it. And when they went to go back later, the water was already 10+ feet above the tanktop. Was there any chance of saving the Boiler Room, perhaps if they had stayed a little longer?

Sorry for the long questions, this had been bothering me since I read it
The one about the geyser of water in Boiler Room No. 5 has been proved to be nonsense.

There are old threads covering it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

James B

Member
May 3, 2021
102
14
53
Earth
.

3. Titanic did not Hard a'starboard
In the book, they did not try to avoid it, but instead turned shortly before to continue to make a wide turn 'round the Ice field, which put the iceberg barely off to the starboard side. Then when the Titanic spotted the iceberg, Hichens had the helm hard over, but to correct the course, he starts to turn to port, which caused the Titanic to hit the iceberg, but mostly ride over the iceberg, including, in his words, "going up and over" the iceberg. On top of that, he believes that the sideswipe damage did not affect the hull, but it was mostly the grounding. I personally don't agree, but does it have any merit?
The helmsman or quartermaster as they called it back then does not navigate the ship, he follows orders and it is the duty of the officer to make sure he follows his instructions. Any large alteration of course are done by giving the order hard to port or to starboard, during that time if the officer want the helmsman to keep course he would have said aspecific course or steady as she goes, but not during aclose quarter situation, in that time the officer (or master, depends who is on the bridge) control the turn and the rate of turn by specific orders and never put it on the shoulders of asimple sailor/rating. Iam sure Murdoch acted in that manner and it was not the case or the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,514
928
388
65
Almost the entire book Titanic Myths, Titanic Truths, is full of Capt Brown's mostly improbable hypothesis that are not supported by any available evidence. This includes nonsense that the Titanic did not hard-a-starboard as well as circumstances of the deaths of Shepherd and Harvey.

Michael H Standart has summed it up nicely above by his quote "the pitfall of falling in love with one's own hypothesis".

I have read similar other books that claim things like the Titanic never sank, Alfred Lowenstein was murdered by his wife's paramour and Lindbergh accidentally killed his own baby son and then faked a kidnapping to avoid adverse publicity and manslaughter charges etc.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,131
483
158
16
Maryland, USA
Almost the entire book Titanic Myths, Titanic Truths, is full of Capt Brown's mostly improbable hypothesis that are not supported by any available evidence. This includes nonsense that the Titanic did not hard-a-starboard as well as circumstances of the deaths of Shepherd and Harvey.

Michael H Standart has summed it up nicely above by his quote "the pitfall of falling in love with one's own hypothesis".
Ah ok, thanks Arun! Although, I personally think #1 is the most likely out of all of them :)
 

Similar threads

Similar threads