# New Titanic Theory



## rickles23

Hi,

According to yet another theory, the moon is now being blamed for the Titanic disaster.

Unfortunatley someone has made a wee bit of a mistake:

The iceberg that the Titanic struck must have broken off from Greenland in January 1912 and reached the shipping lanes by April 15 1912, killing 1,517 people so that equals a trip of 3months

But on checking with the Canadians I found it takes icebergs some 15 to 18 months or more to travel from their calving grounds to the waters of the North Atlantic.

Next theory please..(Scribe)

Regards


----------



## Boatman25

Perhaps there was a strong wind he he


----------



## JoeQ

Perhaps the iceberg broke off from Greenland in January 1911, 15 months before and there was a typo in the report you read


----------



## Tmac1720

If the iceberg had been carrying and showing the correct navigation lights the accident probably wouldn't have happened. (Hippy)


----------



## cueball44

Apparently, when it broke off it most probably had a decent keel on it, and by all accounts one side of it was like a giant sail, so if it was blowing most of the time then it could have done the distance in three months.(Smoke)


----------



## paisleymerchant

Or the Titanic could just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time !!


----------



## septiclecky

What about this one then.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...p-struck-iceberg/story-e6frev00-1226295580466


----------



## lesbryan

I honestly do not know why all this whoo har is still going on it is 100 years ago all people concerned are dead there is no one to left to blame .So why cant the people who perished that fateful night be left in peace and the whole sorry episode be put to bed for good


----------



## chadburn

Tmac1720 said:


> If the iceberg had been carrying and showing the correct navigation lights the accident probably wouldn't have happened. (Hippy)


I would not be too sure about that Tmac, there have been a number of correctly lit ship's that have managed to have "a coming together", in similiar cir***stances over the year's. Wrong speed and in the wrong type of Fog.(Cloud)


----------



## Farmer John

I remember my granny telling me she that asked her school head if the pupils could go and watch the launch. She was told no, so she mitched off and went herself.

Don't say that was why it sank...


----------



## rickles23

Hi,
Many theories abound.
But the reason Titanic sank was because she was full of water.
Regards


----------



## billyboy

Now thats a good theory Rickles. worthy of a little research and discussion that. Something I had not thought about before. Somebody must have left the tap on eh.
I always thought it was because the chief steward was getting on to the skipper for more ice.


----------



## RNW

Are there any members of SN who are going on the Balmoral memorial trip next month for the 100th anniversary.?


----------



## rickles23

Hi Billyboy,
Strange you should write(type) "chief steward was getting on to the skipper for more ice."

Yet another letter has been found stating that Captain Edwards was drunk.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4181664/Titanic-captain-drunk-when-ship-hit-iceberg.html

But the bit I like is "was last seen alive on the bridge after making the heroic decision to go down with his ship."

Regards


----------



## alan ward

billyboy said:


> Now thats a good theory Rickles. worthy of a little research and discussion that. Something I had not thought about before. Somebody must have left the tap on eh.
> I always thought it was because the chief steward was getting on to the skipper for more ice.


Oh aye,blame the Chief Steward!I noticed with great interest that Captain Smith left an estate valued at £3082,the Chief Steward £3120,says a lot doesn`t it? Mind you,he didn`t smoke or drink.


----------



## chadburn

lesbryan said:


> I honestly do not know why all this whoo har is still going on it is 100 years ago all people concerned are dead there is no one to left to blame .So why cant the people who perished that fateful night be left in peace and the whole sorry episode be put to bed for good


Interesting comment and one followed by the maker's of some of the equipment for the "Titanic". Darlington Forge (Co Durham) cast the one piece Stern frame (around 41 tns) for her and her Sister's along with building the Rudder's which were then taken by railway to West Hartlepool and shipped round to Belfast. Even in the 1930's when Darlington Forge produced a catalogue of the huge casting's they could produce and a look back at what they had produced "Titanic's" sister's were mentioned but no mention of the ill-fated vessel itself was made.


----------



## Tom(Tucker)Kirby

A point of interest. The Iceberg had travelled many miles before the collision. Yet it has been said by experts, Bob Ballard, Heaton & Haas and others, that two/three weeks later, after the incident, that berg was probably completely and totally melted. Is'nt that ironic? Believe it or not. Just another oddity!


----------



## fred henderson

I have read that the iceberg season was unusually early that year. If so, it was probably because of global warming.(?HUH)


----------



## 5036

Spooky but Could Captain Smith have been reincarnated as an Italian cruise liner captain?


----------



## rickles23

*Titanic's Nuclear Secrets*

Hi,

As the 100 year anniversary draws closer over here in Oz the new dvds are coming onto the market.

One of the latest is:

National Geographic: Titanic's Nuclear Secrets!

http://shop.abc.net.au/products/national-geographic-titanics-nuclear-secrets

Regards..(Scribe)


----------



## Seawitch Artist

Frenchman on Titanic tries to get into a lifeboat.
OFFICER:- Don't you know there are still women on board?
FRENCHMAN:- Yes, but at a time like this, who thinks of having sex?


----------



## Binnacle

chadburn said:


> Interesting comment and one followed by the maker's of some of the equipment for the "Titanic". Darlington Forge (Co Durham) cast the one piece Stern frame (around 41 tns) for her and her Sister's along with building the Rudder's which were then taken by railway to West Hartlepool and shipped round to Belfast. Even in the 1930's when Darlington Forge produced a catalogue of the huge casting's they could produce and a look back at what they had produced "Titanic's" sister's were mentioned but no mention of the ill-fated vessel itself was made.


After leaving school Edward John Smith worked for about three years at Etruria Forge before going to sea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17181461


----------



## rickles23

*Shaft tunnel*

Hi,

Just been watching another Titanic tell all.

In this one there is a man with his leg caught in one of the watertight doors in a shaft tunnel and he is forced to cut the lower part of his leg off with a fire axe.

Where did he spring from as there is no mention of this person either in the American Enquiry or the books I have on shipwrecks.

Regards..(Scribe)


----------



## Split

What a lot of rubbish this site posts. I have read "Concordia" and, now, we are on about "Titanic"

Tell me to go somewhere else if I don't like it. That is what I expect, anyway, and that is what I am going to do.


----------



## BillH

rickles23 said:


> Hi,
> 
> As the 100 year anniversary draws closer over here in Oz the new dvds are coming onto the market.
> 
> One of the latest is:
> 
> National Geographic: Titanic's Nuclear Secrets!
> 
> http://shop.abc.net.au/products/national-geographic-titanics-nuclear-secrets
> 
> Regards..(Scribe)



Perhaps it was a typo and was intended as "Unclear secrets"


----------



## Mad Landsman

rickles23 said:


> National Geographic: Titanic's Nuclear Secrets!
> 
> http://shop.abc.net.au/products/national-geographic-titanics-nuclear-secrets


A somewhat sensationalist and misleading title, if one reads this:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080602-titanic-secret.html

The story is that Robert Ballard ( A reserve USN Officer ) was tasked with locating and examining sunken subs Thresher and Scorpion. Whilst he was about it he also decided to have a look for Titanic in the same general area of Ocean.

Nuclear powered submarines - NOT 'Nuclear' Edwardian Liners.


----------



## Tmac1720

Trust me *everything* about the Titanic is sensationalist and misleading (Cloud)


----------



## chadburn

Mad Landsman said:


> A somewhat sensationalist and misleading title, if one reads this:
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080602-titanic-secret.html
> 
> The story is that Robert Ballard ( A reserve USN Officer ) was tasked with locating and examining sunken subs Thresher and Scorpion. Whilst he was about it he also decided to have a look for Titanic in the same general area of Ocean.
> 
> Nuclear powered submarines - NOT 'Nuclear' Edwardian Liners.


My understanding was that Ballard was tasked with diving on the Nuclear Sub's and as he had a bit of dive time left he went looking for the "Titanic"


----------



## Mad Landsman

chadburn said:


> My understanding was that Ballard was tasked with diving on the Nuclear Sub's and as he had a bit of dive time left he went looking for the "Titanic"


Yes, I think we agree on that - BUT:
What about the secret nuclear powered liner?
Now there's a topic for a new conspiracy theory, if anyone is looking for one.


Andrew Marr, on his programme this morning, referring to all events surrounding 'Titanic 100', posed the thought:

"Will anyone in the future be doing the same for aircraft crashes?"
and added: "When today is over can we just leave it to the driest of dry historians?"

I'll go along with that sentiment.


----------



## Boatman25

Ballard was allowed to use the equipment which the Navy had paid for the development of to look for Titanic as long as he looked at Thresher and Scorpion for the Navy first


----------



## Mad Landsman

chadburn said:


> It's a bit like "Nuclear Powered Submarine's"


Nuclear powered submarine's what?


----------



## chadburn

Mad Landsman said:


> Nuclear powered submarine's what?


Sorry, you were a bit quick off the mark as I was scrubbing it as it is not really related to the discussion on second thought's.


----------



## rickles23

Hi,
Hi Split,
Pity some people cannot get the idea of these posts.

With the two Titanic tell all films on yesterday(my time) there was nothing new just a rehash of what has already done.

Hi Mad Landsman,
I agree it was a somewhat misleading title but thats the advertizing for the dvd here in Oz and the reason why I put the weblink in.

Regards


----------



## jerome morris

I do believe if you look more closely, Thresher and Scorpion were found on the ocean bottom at a much earlier date and hundreds of miles away.
I think Ballard may have used the same equipment to find Titanic but not while the other two were being searched for.


----------



## Mad Landsman

jerome morris said:


> I do believe if you look more closely, Thresher and Scorpion were found on the ocean bottom at a much earlier date and hundreds of miles away.
> I think Ballard may have used the same equipment to find Titanic but not while the other two were being searched for.


It might be yet another conspiracy theory spinning into the ground but from what I gather;
Robert Ballard got funding from the UN Navy to help his search for Titanic and part of the deal was that he used his better kit to have _another_ look at the two Submarine wrecks.
The idea seems to be that 'If anyone asks, he was looking for a liner, not a submarine'. That part was supposed to be secret, but not any more if National Geographic are correct.


----------



## Duncan112

And another one!!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-Churchill-to-blame-for-Titanic-disaster.html


----------



## Tmac1720

I thought Churchill was a dog that sold insurance...(?HUH)


----------



## Split

rickles23 said:


> Hi,
> Hi Split,
> Pity some people cannot get the idea of these posts.
> 
> With the two Titanic tell all films on yesterday(my time) there was nothing new just a rehash of what has already done.
> 
> Hi Mad Landsman,
> I agree it was a somewhat misleading title but thats the advertizing for the dvd here in Oz and the reason why I put the weblink in.
> 
> Regards


I am a very unforgiving person. The Master and the bridge officers on watch at the time were responsible for the accident on Costa Concordia. 

The same was true of the Titanic which was steaming at 22.5 knots in an area where bergs had been sighted during the day. So the master did not reduce speed at night? The question requires no answer and is a condemnation of Capt Smith.

This handful of men were responsible for both ships with thousands of crew and passengers on board.

Read Old Salt Blog for the 15th April. The piece was written by Joseph Conrad, who was alive at that time. He was an ex-deck officer and his opinions are worth reading.


----------



## rickles23

Hi all,

I watched the film on the TV last night called Titanic..the sinking. Or truth to tell I watched about fifteen minutes of it.

It is worse than anyting shown before. At one stage the Titanic appears to steam backwards!

Regards


----------



## GWB

I watched a TV show the other night called Case Closed in which the Titanic accident was caused due to a mirage. This is created as the Labrador Current meeting the Gulf Stream. So we now have an other theory. This guy went to all sorts of explanations and showed some fascinating movies to prove the case, worth a look.


----------



## binliner

in the local paper today(dunfermline press) 19/04/12 in the section about news from 100yrs ago is a report of the sinking and reporting all passengers and crew saved.


----------



## 5036

GWB said:


> I watched a TV show the other night called Case Closed in which the Titanic accident was caused due to a mirage. This is created as the Labrador Current meeting the Gulf Stream. So we now have an other theory. This guy went to all sorts of explanations and showed some fascinating movies to prove the case, worth a look.


Another sudden expert who has found a theory that he has made fit the facts as he alone sees them. Patricia Cornwell did exactly the same with the story of Jack the Ripper conveniently dismissing any evidence that might conflict with her conclusions of a case that can never be solved.


----------



## RayL

Although it happened 100 years ago, this does not mean that we should no longer concern ourselves with every scrap of detail we can find out about this vast tragedy. New facts or statements surface from time to time, for example this new one that claims - very plausibly - that Captain Smith had allowed himself to get into a tipsy state following his meal in the restaurant. He was on his final voyage and was master of a magnificent ship that had the reputation of being unsinkable. I guess a few of us in his position might have been tempted to 'chill out' and let the underlings on the bridge earn their keep.

Should we also - according to lesbryan, rickles23, Split and Tmac1720 - take no interest when we are told things that did not figure in either of the two enquiries? Things like the apparent cover up of the defective expansion points on Titanic's superstructure (quietly put right in the design of the next liner to be built), and the discovery a few years ago that a massive section of the ship's bottom lay some way away from the wreck, proving that the impact with the iceberg was far more than the famous gash along the starboard side.

The passage of time makes no difference to the fact that it was a titanic tragedy (no apologies for the pun). Also the event changed history, so for that reason too it is important to gain as full an understanding as possible. Also, the lives of people still with us today were altered by the event so it remains relevant in that sense too.

Given the number of souls on board and all the possible tragic situations in such a large ship, the permutations of tragedy that were possible make perfectly valid the invention of tales like the man who had his leg trapped by the closure of a watertight door. The sinking ship must have positively sizzled with a multitude of such horrible misfortunes, but hidden away as they were we can't know about them, and must instead rely on our verdant imaginations. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## rickles23

Hi RayL,
Very well put, Sir.

I am just interested in an open talk about these new theories that pop up from time to time. Also I find the film of the actual wreck brilliant as to the use of new technology.

I believe, but may be wrong, that the massive section of the ship's bottom was caused when the ship tore in two at the surface when the bow split from the stern? 
Regards


----------



## RayL

Thanks. The section of the ship's bottom that was found quite a way off from the wreck was about 75 ft long. Study of its broken edges indicated that when Titanic first broke, her central portion sagged downwards in the water forming a shallow 'v'. As the disaster progressed, Titanic's front end sank down, and at some stage the piece fell away from the bottom, allowing the ship to break in half completely.


----------



## rickles23

Hi,

I have ordered a couple of Titanic dvds to catch up with the latest film of the wreck.

re Jack the Ripper, according to tv program, it is now believed that it was a media blow up to sell more papers. Worth the watching that one.

Regards


----------



## Klaatu83

There's been an awful lot of rubbish written about what caused the Titanic disaster, mostly from people who have no experience on ships. The fact is that, in 1912, the situation existed in which the shipbuilding industry was capable of building really large and fast ships, while the business of navigating them hadn't really advanced from the days of small, slow sailing ships. Despite her huge size and modern appearance, the Titanic was still being navigated by sextant observations (available only in daylight and at twilight, weather permitting), and by dead-reckoning. Most importantly, the ship lacked radar, which would not become available on ships for another three decades. 

Unlike ships, Icebergs don't display any lights at night. They are virtually invisible in the dark, especially if the weather is calm. Without radar, the only means the Titanic;s crew had of detecting the iceberg was by visual lookout. On the Titanic, the lookouts were posted in the foremast, which was probably not the best place for them to be, because their night vision would have been adversely affected by the ship's own deck lights. As a ship's officer, I was always taught that the best place to post a lookout on a ship was as far forward and low down as possible, meaning at the bow.

On top of that, the Titanic's captain was under pressure from the owners to set a new speed record for crossing the Atlantic, or at least to maintain his arrival schedule. That is a situation that has still not changed. I have experienced situations in which, at the same time the owners were assuring the ships's captain that the safety of the ship was his responsibility, he was reminded simultaneously that he was still obliged to maintain his schedule. A very wise captain I knew once said, "You're schedule is more flexible than your ship'. I never forgot that, would that more captains remembered it.

So, the Titanic was a very large ship, barreling along at very high speed, at night, virtually blind. As a ship's officer who has actually experienced conning ships of the size and speed of the Titanic at night, I can only say that I would have considered the prospect of operating such a ship at night, without radar, to be extremely dangerous. Given the state of the art of navigation in those days, the wonder isn't that the Titanic struck and iceberg and sank, but that similar disasters didn't occur more frequently than they did!


----------

