Why wasn't the wreck found until 1985?

Dec 2, 2000
58,581
371
283
Easley South Carolina
I don't think we should be too hard on the speculative paintings or the people who did them. With the precept that the ship sank intact so widespread, it was really all they had to go on. Also, it wasn't until recently that it was understood that the decent through the water column and impact with the bottom could do as much damage as it's known to do now.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,581
371
283
Easley South Carolina
There is a huge difference between searching for a ship in relatively shallow water where the location is generally known and finding one in massively deep water where to accepted location and the REAL location is off by 13 miles. Even with the Britannic, the information was off, but not by that much.

Don't forget that the resources we take for granted for finding wrecks in deep water in the here and now for the most part didn't exist in the there and then.
 

Dan Kappes

Member
Sep 26, 2018
300
70
28
25
Apple Valley, Minnesota, United States
I don't know why White Star would be embarrassed at the thought she split in two. She SANK so it doesn't matter if they allowed people to say that it was possible that she broke in half. If a ship's funnels can fall off as she sinks, her hull can certainly be stressed enough to fracture. Even wooden sailing ships that were wrecked hundreds of years before completely shattered into bits like glass when they ran aground on rocks, so a ship breaking in two is not completely out of the realm of possibility. And lots of ships since the Titanic have split in half including the Amoco Cadiz and the Edmund Fitzgerald. I even remember that in the Acts of the Apostles chapter in the Bible there's a passage describing a shipwreck breaking in two.
 
Nov 14, 2005
611
231
113
There is a huge difference between searching for a ship in relatively shallow water where the location is generally known and finding one in massively deep water where to accepted location and the REAL location is off by 13 miles. Even with the Britannic, the information was off, but not by that much.

Don't forget that the resources we take for granted for finding wrecks in deep water in the here and now for the most part didn't exist in the there and then.
Thats very true. Its a big ocean out there. But even wrecks right off the coast in shallow water can be very hard to find. There are still 4 ships out of the 12 of the Lost Fleet of 1715 off the Florida's coast that haven't been found yet and they've been searching for them for well over 50 years.
 

Dan Kappes

Member
Sep 26, 2018
300
70
28
25
Apple Valley, Minnesota, United States
I guess it's like a phrase that Robert Ballard used in one of his books: "We'll never know EXACTLY how the Titanic sank."

A deleted scene from the 1997 film shows Old Rose saying a similar quote on the Carpathia about how she changed her life after the disaster from rich to poor, "Can you exchange one life for another? A caterpillar turns into a butterfly. If a mindless insect could do it, why couldn't I? Was it any more UNIMAGINABLE than the sinking of the Titanic?"
 

Kurt Urbain

Member
Oct 11, 2018
58
60
18
I don't think we should be too hard on the speculative paintings or the people who did them. With the precept that the ship sank intact so widespread, it was really all they had to go on. Also, it wasn't until recently that it was understood that the decent through the water column and impact with the bottom could do as much damage as it's known to do now.
I’m happy anytime someone paints a shipwreck, accurate or not. The idea of raising the ship mere weeks after the disaster probably added to the myth of it sinking intact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan Kappes

Kurt Urbain

Member
Oct 11, 2018
58
60
18
Never mind that ping pong balls are subject to ocean pressure like everything else. I never read Raise the Titanic so I’m unsure how they did it in that book.
 

Kurt Urbain

Member
Oct 11, 2018
58
60
18
I’ve had the book forever and anytime I picked it up it seemed so irredeemably stupid I had to put it down. One look at the Lusitania will show you what explosives will do to a wreck. I think the full movie is on YouTube, I should watch it one of these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan Kappes

Kurt Urbain

Member
Oct 11, 2018
58
60
18
I think I read that article once and forgot all about it. I guess I’ve read Ballards book so many times it’s just burned into my brain. It falling off to deterioration makes sense, or maybe it got bumped. The mast sags so badly now it wouldn’t have lasted anyway. I wouldn’t be surprised if the mast itself is gone before long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM1971

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
505
100
53
It certainly does not help when 4th officer Boxhall gave the wrong position of the wreck!
Robert Ballard was not the only one looking for Titanic. If you read THE DISCOVERY OF THE TITANIC book it tells you all amount it. Ballard came close of not finding the ship too!
The cost of these operation are huge with a tight time table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dec 2, 2000
58,581
371
283
Easley South Carolina
I don't know why White Star would be embarrassed at the thought she split in two. She SANK so it doesn't matter if they allowed people to say that it was possible that she broke in half.
Keep in mind, it's their perspective on the matter which counts, not ours. There were troubles in Europe, World War 1 was only a spark and an assassins bullet away from happening, and the absolute last thing the British authorities would want to do is admit that a ship built of their best battleship steel broke up when it sank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan Kappes

CM1971

Member
Aug 26, 2018
24
16
3
New York
True, sadly one of the most important parts of the Titanic's story will probably not even be there the next time we dive down.