Titanic Sinking: Could A Virgin Perspective Solve the Mystery + Are we unintentionally Biased?

In your opinion, Could a fresh untainted analysis of the Sinking tell us what actually happened?


  • Total voters
    14

I not to sure how to explain this but here we go...

I been thinking what would happen if we got people who never heard of Titanic to determine the sinking:

My hypnosis, is that if we got together a bunch of experts in ship structure who had never heard anything about the ship or seen any imaginings or witness accounts (which sounds impossible) and just gave them the the essential info needed (like dimensions, speed, buoyancy etc), would they give us a new series of events that matched witness testimony and solve the mystery.

-----------------

My second issue is that are our ideas / viewing of the sinking been made biased by films, witness testimony and personal opinions. would you agree?

Finally, does it seem odd when it comes to witness testimony we come up with two excuses?

Witness Testimony from 1912: "We can't trust it due to reporters, Inquires tainting their statements and the trauma affecting their memory."

Witness Testimony from 1950+ "We can't trust it due to them forgetting the events 50+ years onwards and contradicting their earlier statements."
 

Aaron_2016

Former Member
Difficult to say. The only hard fact we know is that the Titanic sank because there is a wreck on the bottom of the Atlantic that looks uncanny like the photos of the Titanic. Apart from that, everything else we have learned about the sinking comes from survivors accounts - and there the problem begins. Accounts are contradictory and come from a wide range of sources that could be credited or discredited depending on the reader's choice and each one could be interpreted differently. I believe the best way to find out what really happened would have been to hold a full 'independent inquiry' outside the influence of any outside source. Sadly the witnesses have all since passed away.


.
 
While I admit a 3rd inquiry would have help (Samuel Halpern did do a good job in his book) I can't help but wonder if all the films and documentaries over the year might had made us subconsciously want it to happen a particular way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Aaron_2016

Former Member
There is undoubtedly a positive and negative effect to films and documentaries. James Cameron's Hollywood film was so well made with incredible sales that many people might have taken every scene in the film as truthful to the real events. We also have documentaries that do greater harm than good. e.g. There are people on Youtube who are completely convinced that the Titanic was sunk on purpose or switched with the Olympic because they saw it on a documentary on Youtube.


.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
What actually happened? The answer is simple. Titanic hit an iceberg and sank.

What some people are looking for is a minute-by-minute factual account of every little detail. That is impossible. Even if everyone that survived were still here, eyewitnesses accounts by themselves are notorious for being unreliable. There would always be contradictions and inconsistencies that always come about after some traumatic event takes place. As far as what people believe, unfortunately, people believe whatever they want to believe. Before the days of TV documentaries, movie films and YouTube, "If it was written, so it must have been done." Now it is, "if I saw it happen that way, so it must have happened that way."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We know what sank the ship but I was referring more to the breakup and reaction of the Bow and Stern during the breakup since it' still heavily discussed and contended.
 
Last edited:

Rob Lawes

Member
I think one of the biggest factors that governs the study of the Titanic is the industry that has grown around the story of the ship.

It seems to me, and I mean no offence to any individual by this, that if a researcher can not find an 'angle' to sell their work then they don't have much to sell. The story of the liner that struck an iceberg and sank on its maiden voyage condemning 1500 people to a watery grave has been well written. The only way to pique interest is to find a new angle on an old story.

Just look at how many documentaries National Geographic push out, "the final word", "the last secrets", "the final secrets", "the last of the words on the final secrets....".

Then we have our own perception thrown into the mix. It can't be as just straightforward as a ship in the wrong place at the wrong time, receiving overwhelming damage to its hull. There has to be more to it than that?

Then there's conformation bias where we seek to confirm our own pre-conceived ideas at the expense of the obvious or the true.

I think its a story so often told we have run out of ways to tell it. A good way to start again would be to ask ourselves what really matters and what don't we know?

Overall, does it matter one hill of beans if the bow lifted up a foot? 10 yards or sprang back out of the water and span round three times? Of course not. Well, not in the overall scheme of things.

But where were all those ships that the Californian saw? Were they there at all? Did the Mount Temple do enough or is there more to her story?

The bigger picture remains more interesting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
"...I think its a story so often told we have run out of ways to tell it..."

Writing my book and trying to avoid unintentional plagiarism, I certainly know the feeling... there's only so many ways you can describe the collision or her arrival somewhere before the alarm starts going off.
 
There are no neutral observers. There are no unbiased researchers. We all come to subjects like Titanic with a life history which shapes our views. An engineer would focus on the damage and breakup. A socialist would rant about the evils of the big shipping companies. An attorney for the officers would point out how tightly they were constrained by company orders and international regulations. News reporters would look for sad stories to tell, or heroes to promote. So it would go...then as now. The answer to the question is, "yes," the Titanic story would be different if it were told fresh today. But, that begs the question of whether it would be told any more correctly. Probably not. As there are different long splices for different ships, so their are different biases for different generations.

-- David G. Brown
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
There are no neutral observers. There are no unbiased researchers. We all come to subjects like Titanic with a life history which shapes our views. An engineer would focus on the damage and breakup. A socialist would rant about the evils of the big shipping companies. An attorney for the officers would point out how tightly they were constrained by company orders and international regulations. News reporters would look for sad stories to tell, or heroes to promote. So it would go...then as now. The answer to the question is, "yes," the Titanic story would be different if it were told fresh today. But, that begs the question of whether it would be told any more correctly. Probably not. As there are different long splices for different ships, so their are different biases for different generations.

-- David G. Brown

You make a good point, David G. Brown.

Off topic, but how do your speeches aways sound so dramatic and epic? they aways sound as if they should come at the end of a meaningful Story!
 
Top