Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Questions On Steering And On Plates
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert11
May 6, 2012, 12:48:29 PM5/6/12
to
Hello,
Have a few questions whic I've read up on, but am still uncertain:
a.. Steering-
On the Titanic, moving the wheel left, e.g., turned the bow to the left,
as it would in a car.
True ?
The problem was that the command "Hard A Starboard" was used to turn to
the left, and this caused all the confusion. True ?
On all steamships of the time, turning the wheel left, turned the bow to
the left. But the commands to the Helmsman to do this left turn varied
wildly. True ?
b. Plates-
The Titanic had Butt joints for the plates as well as lap joints,
apparently.
Where were each type used ? Which was prevalent ?
Was there always a Rib,or other type of structural member
(not sure what these might have been called; Doublers, perhaps ?) that
was Always picked up by the rivet row ?
Or, some rivets just joined two plates, and that was all ?
Any thoughts would be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Bob
Have a few questions whic I've read up on, but am still uncertain:
a.. Steering-
On the Titanic, moving the wheel left, e.g., turned the bow to the left,
as it would in a car.
True ?
The problem was that the command "Hard A Starboard" was used to turn to
the left, and this caused all the confusion. True ?
On all steamships of the time, turning the wheel left, turned the bow to
the left. But the commands to the Helmsman to do this left turn varied
wildly. True ?
b. Plates-
The Titanic had Butt joints for the plates as well as lap joints,
apparently.
Where were each type used ? Which was prevalent ?
Was there always a Rib,or other type of structural member
(not sure what these might have been called; Doublers, perhaps ?) that
was Always picked up by the rivet row ?
Or, some rivets just joined two plates, and that was all ?
Any thoughts would be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Bob
ckoz...@snet.net
May 7, 2012, 8:20:05 AM5/7/12
to
Cannot speak for the plating, but as far as the steering goes, here are my hypotheses:
Hyp #1. Ships as recent as the Olympic Class were still wired "tiller style"(the stick swung to port = starbd rudder) via the steering gear. It was still deeply engrained in pilots heads at that time so that's how it was done.
Hyp #2. That Titanic history has been handed down completely BACKWARDS: That the steering gear on ships since the Maury sisters(Cunard) was already like that on cars, but that Titanic actually encountered the berg on her PORT side. Recall numerous accounts of Titanic's "list to port" in books chronicling the sinking. I seriously do not believe that the water inrushing from a Starboard graze would immediately move over to the Port side - AWAY from the damage! LOLOL.
In either case, two factors conspired to bring ship and berg together: The relative undersize of her rudder, and, the lack of propwash across same rudder due to reduced speed and full-astern commands given right before the collision.
-ChrisCoaster
Hyp #1. Ships as recent as the Olympic Class were still wired "tiller style"(the stick swung to port = starbd rudder) via the steering gear. It was still deeply engrained in pilots heads at that time so that's how it was done.
Hyp #2. That Titanic history has been handed down completely BACKWARDS: That the steering gear on ships since the Maury sisters(Cunard) was already like that on cars, but that Titanic actually encountered the berg on her PORT side. Recall numerous accounts of Titanic's "list to port" in books chronicling the sinking. I seriously do not believe that the water inrushing from a Starboard graze would immediately move over to the Port side - AWAY from the damage! LOLOL.
In either case, two factors conspired to bring ship and berg together: The relative undersize of her rudder, and, the lack of propwash across same rudder due to reduced speed and full-astern commands given right before the collision.
-ChrisCoaster
Dennis Ahern
May 8, 2012, 7:49:17 PM5/8/12
to
ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
: Recall numerous accounts of Titanic's "list to port" in books
gangway that was opened on E deck when they thought passengers might board
the lifeboats there. This gangway was adjacent to Scotland Road which
allowed the water to flood the length of the port side very quickly. I've
also heard it suggested that there was more weight on the port side
because the coal bunkers on that side had not been drawn down as much as
the bunkers on the starboard side.
-dja
: Recall numerous accounts of Titanic's "list to port" in books
: chronicling the sinking. I seriously do not believe that the water
: inrushing from a Starboard graze would immediately move over to the Port
I thought the list to port was caused by the inrush of water through the
: inrushing from a Starboard graze would immediately move over to the Port
gangway that was opened on E deck when they thought passengers might board
the lifeboats there. This gangway was adjacent to Scotland Road which
allowed the water to flood the length of the port side very quickly. I've
also heard it suggested that there was more weight on the port side
because the coal bunkers on that side had not been drawn down as much as
the bunkers on the starboard side.
-dja
ckoz...@snet.net
May 9, 2012, 7:16:26 AM5/9/12
to
That's a possibility. But I'm sticking with the revision: Port side collision. Sorry Mr. Cameron!
sdavmor
May 9, 2012, 11:09:03 AM5/9/12
to
On 05/09/2012 04:16 AM, ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
> That's a possibility. But I'm sticking with the revision: Port side collision. Sorry Mr. Cameron!
The 1953 Hollywood film of Titanic showed a port side collision.
> That's a possibility. But I'm sticking with the revision: Port side collision. Sorry Mr. Cameron!
--
SDM a 21st century schizoid man in SoCal
Systems Theory website www.systemstheory.net
"overfulnoisecascade" CD coming soon
ckoz...@snet.net
May 9, 2012, 11:27:07 AM5/9/12
to
Well there you go. I had it right all the time! :)
Bill Leary
May 9, 2012, 8:09:04 PM5/9/12
to
"sdavmor" wrote in message news:joe1ah$a0q$1...@news.albasani.net...
Yeah. Well, they also launched WWII military transport rafts, the crew wore
British Royal Navy uniforms, and a song which wasn't written until the '50's
figured prominently in two scenes.
A dandy love-and-sacrifice story. But historical accuracy wasn't even a
consideration.
There's no doubt she struck on the starboard side. Dozens of witness,
including people trained to observe.
- Bill
> On 05/09/2012 04:16 AM, ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
>> That's a possibility. But I'm sticking with the revision: Port side
>> collision. Sorry Mr. Cameron!
>
> The 1953 Hollywood film of Titanic showed a port side collision.
"Titanic" starring Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Wagner.
>> That's a possibility. But I'm sticking with the revision: Port side
>> collision. Sorry Mr. Cameron!
>
> The 1953 Hollywood film of Titanic showed a port side collision.
Yeah. Well, they also launched WWII military transport rafts, the crew wore
British Royal Navy uniforms, and a song which wasn't written until the '50's
figured prominently in two scenes.
A dandy love-and-sacrifice story. But historical accuracy wasn't even a
consideration.
There's no doubt she struck on the starboard side. Dozens of witness,
including people trained to observe.
- Bill
ckoz...@snet.net
May 9, 2012, 8:28:05 PM5/9/12
to
Name names.
sdavmor
May 9, 2012, 10:29:41 PM5/9/12
to
side-swipe before the 1953 film was released and reverse the footage.
Bubba
May 9, 2012, 11:32:44 PM5/9/12
to
of damage more to starboard than to port where the iceberg tore the fateful
gash in her? I haven't researched it, but I'm guessing that might be the
case.
--
Bub
Bubba
May 9, 2012, 11:54:54 PM5/9/12
to
P.S. I found this, citing "ultrasound surveys of the wreck . . . starboard side":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Titanic#Effects_of_the_collision
"The iceberg buckled the plates, popping rivets and damaging a sequence of
compartments. Contrary to widespread assumption, the iceberg did not slice the hull.
The impact with the iceberg was long thought to have produced a huge tear in Titanic's
hull, "not less than 300 feet (91 m) in length, 10 feet (3.0 m) above the level of the keel",
as one writer later put it.[40] However, ultrasound surveys of the wreck have found that
the damage consisted of six narrow openings in an area of the hull covering only about 12
to 13 square feet (1.1 to 1.2 m2) in total. According to Paul K. Matthias, who made the
measurements, the damage consisted of a "series of deformations in the starboard side
that start and stop along the hull ... about 10 feet [3.0 m] above the bottom of the
ship."[41]
The gaps, the longest of which measures about 39 feet (12 m) long, appear to have
followed the line of the hull plates. This suggests that the iron rivets along the plate seams
snapped off or popped open to create narrow gaps through which water flooded. An
engineer from Titanic's builders, Harland and Wolff, suggested this scenario at the British
Wreck Commissioner's inquiry following the disaster but his view was discounted.[41]
Titanic's discoverer Robert Ballard has commented that the assumption that the ship had
suffered a massive breach was "a byproduct of the mystique of the Titanic. No one could
believe that the great ship was sunk by a little sliver."[42] Faults in the ship's hull may
have been a contributing factor. Recovered pieces of Titanic's hull plates appear to have
shattered on impact with the iceberg, without bending.[43]
The plates in the central 60% of the hull were held together with triple rows of mild steel
rivets, but the plates in the bow and stern were held together with double rows of
wrought iron rivets which were - according to material scientists Foecke and McCarty -
near their stress limits even before the collision.[44][45] These "Best" or No. 3 iron rivets
had a high level of slag inclusions, making them more brittle than the more usual "Best-
Best" No. 4 iron rivets, and more prone to snapping when put under stress.[46][47] But
Tom McCluskie, a retired archivist of Harland & Wolff, pointed out that Olympic,
Titanic's sister ship, was riveted with the same iron and served without incident for nearly
25 years, surviving several major collisions, including being rammed by a British
cruiser.[48] The Olympic even rammed and sank the U boat U-103 with her bow.
Thereby, the stem was twisted and hull plates on the starboard side were buckled without
impairing the hull's integrity.[48][49]
Above the waterline, there was little evidence of the collision. The stewards in the First
Class Dining Room noticed a shudder, which they thought might have been caused by
the ship shedding a propeller blade. Many of the passengers felt a bump or shudder but
did not know what it was.[50] Those on the lowest decks, nearest the site of the collision,
felt it much more directly. Engine Oiler Walter Hurst recalled being "awakened by a
grinding crash along the starboard side. No one was very much alarmed but knew we had
struck something".[51] Fireman George Kemish heard a "heavy thud and grinding tearing
sound" from the starboard hull.[52]
The ship began to flood immediately, with water pouring in at an estimated rate of 7 long
tons (7.1 t)[53] a second.[54] Second Engineer J. H. Hesketh and Leading Stoker
Frederick Barrett were hit by a jet of icy water in No. 6 boiler room and escaped just
before the room's watertight door closed.[55] This was an extremely dangerous situation
for the engineering staff; the boilers were still full of hot high-pressure steam and there
was a substantial risk that they would explode if they came into contact with the cold
seawater flooding into the boiler rooms. The stokers and firemen were ordered to draw
down the fires and vent the boilers, sending great quantities of steam up the funnel
venting pipes. They were waist-deep in freezing water by the time they finished their
work.[56]"
--
Bub
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Titanic#Effects_of_the_collision
"The iceberg buckled the plates, popping rivets and damaging a sequence of
compartments. Contrary to widespread assumption, the iceberg did not slice the hull.
The impact with the iceberg was long thought to have produced a huge tear in Titanic's
hull, "not less than 300 feet (91 m) in length, 10 feet (3.0 m) above the level of the keel",
as one writer later put it.[40] However, ultrasound surveys of the wreck have found that
the damage consisted of six narrow openings in an area of the hull covering only about 12
to 13 square feet (1.1 to 1.2 m2) in total. According to Paul K. Matthias, who made the
measurements, the damage consisted of a "series of deformations in the starboard side
that start and stop along the hull ... about 10 feet [3.0 m] above the bottom of the
ship."[41]
The gaps, the longest of which measures about 39 feet (12 m) long, appear to have
followed the line of the hull plates. This suggests that the iron rivets along the plate seams
snapped off or popped open to create narrow gaps through which water flooded. An
engineer from Titanic's builders, Harland and Wolff, suggested this scenario at the British
Wreck Commissioner's inquiry following the disaster but his view was discounted.[41]
Titanic's discoverer Robert Ballard has commented that the assumption that the ship had
suffered a massive breach was "a byproduct of the mystique of the Titanic. No one could
believe that the great ship was sunk by a little sliver."[42] Faults in the ship's hull may
have been a contributing factor. Recovered pieces of Titanic's hull plates appear to have
shattered on impact with the iceberg, without bending.[43]
The plates in the central 60% of the hull were held together with triple rows of mild steel
rivets, but the plates in the bow and stern were held together with double rows of
wrought iron rivets which were - according to material scientists Foecke and McCarty -
near their stress limits even before the collision.[44][45] These "Best" or No. 3 iron rivets
had a high level of slag inclusions, making them more brittle than the more usual "Best-
Best" No. 4 iron rivets, and more prone to snapping when put under stress.[46][47] But
Tom McCluskie, a retired archivist of Harland & Wolff, pointed out that Olympic,
Titanic's sister ship, was riveted with the same iron and served without incident for nearly
25 years, surviving several major collisions, including being rammed by a British
cruiser.[48] The Olympic even rammed and sank the U boat U-103 with her bow.
Thereby, the stem was twisted and hull plates on the starboard side were buckled without
impairing the hull's integrity.[48][49]
Above the waterline, there was little evidence of the collision. The stewards in the First
Class Dining Room noticed a shudder, which they thought might have been caused by
the ship shedding a propeller blade. Many of the passengers felt a bump or shudder but
did not know what it was.[50] Those on the lowest decks, nearest the site of the collision,
felt it much more directly. Engine Oiler Walter Hurst recalled being "awakened by a
grinding crash along the starboard side. No one was very much alarmed but knew we had
struck something".[51] Fireman George Kemish heard a "heavy thud and grinding tearing
sound" from the starboard hull.[52]
The ship began to flood immediately, with water pouring in at an estimated rate of 7 long
tons (7.1 t)[53] a second.[54] Second Engineer J. H. Hesketh and Leading Stoker
Frederick Barrett were hit by a jet of icy water in No. 6 boiler room and escaped just
before the room's watertight door closed.[55] This was an extremely dangerous situation
for the engineering staff; the boilers were still full of hot high-pressure steam and there
was a substantial risk that they would explode if they came into contact with the cold
seawater flooding into the boiler rooms. The stokers and firemen were ordered to draw
down the fires and vent the boilers, sending great quantities of steam up the funnel
venting pipes. They were waist-deep in freezing water by the time they finished their
work.[56]"
--
Bub
Bubba
May 10, 2012, 12:16:15 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012, sdavmor <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote:
>On 05/09/2012 05:09 PM, Bill Leary wrote:
>> "sdavmor" wrote in message news:joe1ah$a0q$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> On 05/09/2012 04:16 AM, ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
>>>> That's a possibility. But I'm sticking with the revision: Port side
>>>> collision. Sorry Mr. Cameron!
>>>
>>> The 1953 Hollywood film of Titanic showed a port side collision.
>>
>> "Titanic" starring Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Wagner.
>>
>> Yeah. Well, they also launched WWII military transport rafts, the crew
>> wore British Royal Navy uniforms, and a song which wasn't written until
>> the '50's figured prominently in two scenes.
>>
>> A dandy love-and-sacrifice story. But historical accuracy wasn't even a
>> consideration.
>>
>> There's no doubt she struck on the starboard side. Dozens of witness,
>> including people trained to observe.
>>
>> - Bill
>
>Absolutely. It's mind-boggling that somebody didn't notice the port
>side-swipe before the 1953 film was released and reverse the footage.
If there was lettering visible on the movie ship, then even if the
>On 05/09/2012 05:09 PM, Bill Leary wrote:
>> "sdavmor" wrote in message news:joe1ah$a0q$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> On 05/09/2012 04:16 AM, ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
>>>> That's a possibility. But I'm sticking with the revision: Port side
>>>> collision. Sorry Mr. Cameron!
>>>
>>> The 1953 Hollywood film of Titanic showed a port side collision.
>>
>> "Titanic" starring Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Wagner.
>>
>> Yeah. Well, they also launched WWII military transport rafts, the crew
>> wore British Royal Navy uniforms, and a song which wasn't written until
>> the '50's figured prominently in two scenes.
>>
>> A dandy love-and-sacrifice story. But historical accuracy wasn't even a
>> consideration.
>>
>> There's no doubt she struck on the starboard side. Dozens of witness,
>> including people trained to observe.
>>
>> - Bill
>
>Absolutely. It's mind-boggling that somebody didn't notice the port
>side-swipe before the 1953 film was released and reverse the footage.
producers did realize at the last minute that the port collision was
historically flawed, mirroring the segment's film footage would have
been infeasible in those days.
I googled: titanic 1953 sinking scene, but I'm on the old dial-up:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=titanic+1953+sinking+scene
--
Bub
ckoz...@snet.net
May 10, 2012, 6:45:59 AM5/10/12
to
I *used to* believe in a starboard collision as it was the first version I learned as a child. But after so many port side references, lists to port, what have you, I no longer embrace the starboard theory. This would have been an easy mirroring job for James Cameron - just the impact under water and the scene with Rose & Jack in the well deck.
I am convinced, however, that the hull damage was not as drastic as a single "gash". That would have filled any ship - let alone Titanic - much sooner!
I am convinced, however, that the hull damage was not as drastic as a single "gash". That would have filled any ship - let alone Titanic - much sooner!
ckoz...@snet.net
May 10, 2012, 6:45:59 AM5/10/12
to
Bill Leary
May 10, 2012, 8:10:25 AM5/10/12
to
"Bubba" wrote in message news:II822ZCG4103...@reece.net.au...
It does, and it is (the case). No "gash three hundred foot long," but a
series of punctures and buckled plates. See the section on effects of the
collision in the Wikipedia entry about the sinking of the Titanic for an
easy to read summary.
- Bill
series of punctures and buckled plates. See the section on effects of the
collision in the Wikipedia entry about the sinking of the Titanic for an
easy to read summary.
- Bill
ckoz...@snet.net
May 10, 2012, 8:25:04 AM5/10/12
to
I agree with all of that! I still feel that a gash would have sunk titanic quicker. It is the side of the ship damaged that is what I feel has been misstated all these years.
Diogenes
May 10, 2012, 9:25:50 PM5/10/12
to
As we were leaving the theatre she said "I seem to recall that the
Titanic broke in half before sinking."
Grandma was born in 1900 so she was 12 years old when the Titanic
sank, but she was always an avid reader of the newspaper. Prior to
Ballard's discovery of the Titanic, was it a common belief or theory
that the ship did break in half before her final plunge? If not, where
would my grandmother have obtained that information?
----
Diogenes
The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .
ckoz...@snet.net
May 10, 2012, 10:35:45 PM5/10/12
to
The Ballard expeditions have already proved that Titanic broke in half upon sinking.
Bill Leary
May 11, 2012, 7:37:57 AM5/11/12
to
"Diogenes" wrote in message
news:qvpoq75b3fsthauio...@4ax.com...
said they believed the ship wouldn't have broken up. But some witnesses
were sure she had. There's a somewhat well known drawing by Jack Thayer
showing exactly that. If your grandmother was an avid reader she probably
ran across some of the testimony or perhaps an interview with Thayer saying
so.
See
http://acrazychicken.blogspot.com/2010/06/forgotten-americans-jack-thayer-titanic.html
Of interest is Jacks drawing showing the BOW floating after the break up. I
don’t recall ever hearing or seeing that anywhere else but from him. And
the evidence contradicts this. The bow was fully flooded so there would
have been nothing to make it float back up. I've sometimes wondered if this
aspect helped people to dismiss his account.
- Bill
news:qvpoq75b3fsthauio...@4ax.com...
> My grandmother took me to see the 1953 movie when I was ~ 9 years old.
> As we were leaving the theatre she said "I seem to recall that the
> Titanic broke in half before sinking."
>
> Grandma was born in 1900 so she was 12 years old when the Titanic
> sank, but she was always an avid reader of the newspaper. Prior to
> Ballard's discovery of the Titanic, was it a common belief or theory
> that the ship did break in half before her final plunge? If not, where
> would my grandmother have obtained that information?
It was the popular belief that Titanic sank intact. The marine engineers
> As we were leaving the theatre she said "I seem to recall that the
> Titanic broke in half before sinking."
>
> Grandma was born in 1900 so she was 12 years old when the Titanic
> sank, but she was always an avid reader of the newspaper. Prior to
> Ballard's discovery of the Titanic, was it a common belief or theory
> that the ship did break in half before her final plunge? If not, where
> would my grandmother have obtained that information?
said they believed the ship wouldn't have broken up. But some witnesses
were sure she had. There's a somewhat well known drawing by Jack Thayer
showing exactly that. If your grandmother was an avid reader she probably
ran across some of the testimony or perhaps an interview with Thayer saying
so.
See
http://acrazychicken.blogspot.com/2010/06/forgotten-americans-jack-thayer-titanic.html
Of interest is Jacks drawing showing the BOW floating after the break up. I
don’t recall ever hearing or seeing that anywhere else but from him. And
the evidence contradicts this. The bow was fully flooded so there would
have been nothing to make it float back up. I've sometimes wondered if this
aspect helped people to dismiss his account.
- Bill
ckoz...@snet.net
May 11, 2012, 8:26:39 AM5/11/12
to
I brought this up in another Titanic-related thread but it bears repeating:
It is absolutely amazing what effects a traumatizing situation can have one the human capacity to think and perceive what is going on around them.
As in the case of early that Monday morning, there were so many circumstances combining to alter ones perspective of what happened.
1. Chilly, pitch dark moonless night on a calm sea.
2. No public address system to simultaneously inform everyone on board as to what happened, where to go in an emergency.
3. Conflicting information from crew.
4. Limited lifeboats.
5. Restricted class access to sections of the ship.
6. Increased breakdown in social order & behavior as ship sank lower and boats became scarcer.
7. Total breakdown of order after power failed and lights went out for good after 2am ship time.
8. Being separated from loved ones either during lifeboating or lack of familiarity with ship layout.
All of these, and more, altered ones very perception of the event itself. No wonder so many conflicting testimonies surfaced. Even the side of the ship meeting the iceberg was NEVER ACTUALLY documented, either written or spoken. So while I'm sticking with a port-side collision, we may actually never know.
It is absolutely amazing what effects a traumatizing situation can have one the human capacity to think and perceive what is going on around them.
As in the case of early that Monday morning, there were so many circumstances combining to alter ones perspective of what happened.
1. Chilly, pitch dark moonless night on a calm sea.
2. No public address system to simultaneously inform everyone on board as to what happened, where to go in an emergency.
3. Conflicting information from crew.
4. Limited lifeboats.
5. Restricted class access to sections of the ship.
6. Increased breakdown in social order & behavior as ship sank lower and boats became scarcer.
7. Total breakdown of order after power failed and lights went out for good after 2am ship time.
8. Being separated from loved ones either during lifeboating or lack of familiarity with ship layout.
All of these, and more, altered ones very perception of the event itself. No wonder so many conflicting testimonies surfaced. Even the side of the ship meeting the iceberg was NEVER ACTUALLY documented, either written or spoken. So while I'm sticking with a port-side collision, we may actually never know.
Diogenes
May 11, 2012, 6:40:00 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:37:57 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
wrote:
>"Diogenes" wrote in message
>news:qvpoq75b3fsthauio...@4ax.com...
>> My grandmother took me to see the 1953 movie when I was ~ 9 years old.
>> As we were leaving the theatre she said "I seem to recall that the
>> Titanic broke in half before sinking."
>>
>> Grandma was born in 1900 so she was 12 years old when the Titanic
>> sank, but she was always an avid reader of the newspaper. Prior to
>> Ballard's discovery of the Titanic, was it a common belief or theory
>> that the ship did break in half before her final plunge? If not, where
>> would my grandmother have obtained that information?
>
>It was the popular belief that Titanic sank intact. The marine engineers
>said they believed the ship wouldn't have broken up. But some witnesses
>were sure she had. There's a somewhat well known drawing by Jack Thayer
>showing exactly that. If your grandmother was an avid reader she probably
>ran across some of the testimony or perhaps an interview with Thayer saying
>so.
I'm not a marine engineer but have my degree mechanical engineering.
Considering the forces and moments resulting from a water-filled bow
and buoyant stern it seems strange that the marine engineers would
have discounted the possibility of a major hull fracture. But if they
worked for Harland and Wolff they may have been pressured to avoid any
admission of structural weakness of the ship.
>See
>http://acrazychicken.blogspot.com/2010/06/forgotten-americans-jack-thayer-titanic.html
Thank you for this link. I had never seen this information before.
>Of interest is Jacks drawing showing the BOW floating after the break up. I
>don’t recall ever hearing or seeing that anywhere else but from him. And
>the evidence contradicts this. The bow was fully flooded so there would
>have been nothing to make it float back up. I've sometimes wondered if this
>aspect helped people to dismiss his account.
The fact that he was only 17 years old may have also cast doubt on his
observations. But his account was very lucid and quite specific ("I
saw the ship in a sort of a red glare, and it seemed to me that she
broke in two just in front of the third funnel."). It is really
strange that his actual observations would have been discounted in
favor of a theoretical scenario put forth by the engineers.
wrote:
>"Diogenes" wrote in message
>news:qvpoq75b3fsthauio...@4ax.com...
>> My grandmother took me to see the 1953 movie when I was ~ 9 years old.
>> As we were leaving the theatre she said "I seem to recall that the
>> Titanic broke in half before sinking."
>>
>> Grandma was born in 1900 so she was 12 years old when the Titanic
>> sank, but she was always an avid reader of the newspaper. Prior to
>> Ballard's discovery of the Titanic, was it a common belief or theory
>> that the ship did break in half before her final plunge? If not, where
>> would my grandmother have obtained that information?
>
>It was the popular belief that Titanic sank intact. The marine engineers
>said they believed the ship wouldn't have broken up. But some witnesses
>were sure she had. There's a somewhat well known drawing by Jack Thayer
>showing exactly that. If your grandmother was an avid reader she probably
>ran across some of the testimony or perhaps an interview with Thayer saying
>so.
Considering the forces and moments resulting from a water-filled bow
and buoyant stern it seems strange that the marine engineers would
have discounted the possibility of a major hull fracture. But if they
worked for Harland and Wolff they may have been pressured to avoid any
admission of structural weakness of the ship.
>See
>http://acrazychicken.blogspot.com/2010/06/forgotten-americans-jack-thayer-titanic.html
Thank you for this link. I had never seen this information before.
>Of interest is Jacks drawing showing the BOW floating after the break up. I
>don’t recall ever hearing or seeing that anywhere else but from him. And
>the evidence contradicts this. The bow was fully flooded so there would
>have been nothing to make it float back up. I've sometimes wondered if this
>aspect helped people to dismiss his account.
observations. But his account was very lucid and quite specific ("I
saw the ship in a sort of a red glare, and it seemed to me that she
broke in two just in front of the third funnel."). It is really
strange that his actual observations would have been discounted in
favor of a theoretical scenario put forth by the engineers.
Bill Leary
May 11, 2012, 11:31:01 PM5/11/12
to
"Diogenes" wrote in message
news:fd4rq7tvvkprucgvj...@4ax.com...
>> ((..omitted..))
witnesses, the majority, who said she sank intact.
- Bill
news:fd4rq7tvvkprucgvj...@4ax.com...
>> ((..omitted..))
>>Of interest is Jacks drawing showing the BOW floating after the break up.
>>I
>>don’t recall ever hearing or seeing that anywhere else but from him. And
>>the evidence contradicts this. The bow was fully flooded so there would
>>have been nothing to make it float back up. I've sometimes wondered if
>>this
>>aspect helped people to dismiss his account.
>
>The fact that he was only 17 years old may have also cast doubt on his
>observations. But his account was very lucid and quite specific ("I
>saw the ship in a sort of a red glare, and it seemed to me that she
>broke in two just in front of the third funnel."). It is really
>strange that his actual observations would have been discounted in
>favor of a theoretical scenario put forth by the engineers.
They didn't just take the professionals opinions. There were other
>>I
>>don’t recall ever hearing or seeing that anywhere else but from him. And
>>the evidence contradicts this. The bow was fully flooded so there would
>>have been nothing to make it float back up. I've sometimes wondered if
>>this
>>aspect helped people to dismiss his account.
>
>The fact that he was only 17 years old may have also cast doubt on his
>observations. But his account was very lucid and quite specific ("I
>saw the ship in a sort of a red glare, and it seemed to me that she
>broke in two just in front of the third funnel."). It is really
>strange that his actual observations would have been discounted in
>favor of a theoretical scenario put forth by the engineers.
witnesses, the majority, who said she sank intact.
- Bill
ckoz...@snet.net
May 12, 2012, 2:59:00 AM5/12/12
to
2:15am: Pitch dark. As in: cannot see your own hand in front of your face dark. Now try to figure out how a ship 1/4 mile away is sinking, let alone the emotional state one must be in.
Diogenes
May 12, 2012, 10:37:47 PM5/12/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 23:31:01 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
However "the majority" of the witnesses were obviously wrong. So why
did Jack Thayer provide one of the few accurate accounts of the last
minutes of the Titanic?
Please understand that I do not pretend to be a knowledgable
'Titaniac' so my comments may be uninformed, but an explanation does
suggest itself.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thayer "Nearly all
those who lived did so by boarding lifeboats. Jack was one of only
about 40 survivors of those who jumped or fell into the water."
Shortly after jumping overboard Thayer was hauled on board an
overturned collapsible which was obviously not maneuverable, so he
must have remained close to the ship until it sank. The lifeboats, on
the other hand, had all rowed well away from the Titanic, presumably
to distance themselves from "the suction" when the ship sank.
I don't know exactly when the Titanic's electric lighting system
failed, but if it occurred before the hull fractured then the
survivors on the lifeboats would not have been able to see what was
occurring, compared to what Jack Thayer saw from his nearby vantage
point.
Don't want to beat this to death, Bill, but the discrepancies and
outright inaccuracies of so-called "eyewitness accounts" have always
been of great interest to me..
did Jack Thayer provide one of the few accurate accounts of the last
minutes of the Titanic?
Please understand that I do not pretend to be a knowledgable
'Titaniac' so my comments may be uninformed, but an explanation does
suggest itself.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thayer "Nearly all
those who lived did so by boarding lifeboats. Jack was one of only
about 40 survivors of those who jumped or fell into the water."
Shortly after jumping overboard Thayer was hauled on board an
overturned collapsible which was obviously not maneuverable, so he
must have remained close to the ship until it sank. The lifeboats, on
the other hand, had all rowed well away from the Titanic, presumably
to distance themselves from "the suction" when the ship sank.
I don't know exactly when the Titanic's electric lighting system
failed, but if it occurred before the hull fractured then the
survivors on the lifeboats would not have been able to see what was
occurring, compared to what Jack Thayer saw from his nearby vantage
point.
Don't want to beat this to death, Bill, but the discrepancies and
outright inaccuracies of so-called "eyewitness accounts" have always
been of great interest to me..
Bill Leary
May 13, 2012, 1:50:35 AM5/13/12
to
"Diogenes" wrote in message
news:3b6uq7dpquarbjc60...@4ax.com...
sitting safe in the live boats, and not struggling for their lives, "of
course" were better witnesses. The phenomena of witness fallibility was
only barely suspected. And more along those lines. Part of the problem in
understanding how such things worked, then, is that we tend to evaluate by
what we know, now.
Another example. It's such common sense that they should have slowed down
with ice about, no moon, and no breeze that it's common to say the captain
acted stupidly. Well, yeah, but his behavior was not uncommon. In general
(there were exceptions) ships continued at their normal speed until ice was
actually sighted, or visibility was impaired, such as with fog or rain.
I've always thought that Smith's real mistake was in not realizing that the
situation was actually one of impaired visibility despite it being a totally
clear night.
- Bill
news:3b6uq7dpquarbjc60...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 23:31:01 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>> They didn't just take the professionals opinions. There were other
>> witnesses, the majority, who said she sank intact.
>
> However "the majority" of the witnesses were obviously wrong. So why
> ((..omitted..))
> wrote:
>> They didn't just take the professionals opinions. There were other
>> witnesses, the majority, who said she sank intact.
>
> However "the majority" of the witnesses were obviously wrong. So why
>
> Don't want to beat this to death, Bill, but the discrepancies and
> outright inaccuracies of so-called "eyewitness accounts" have
> always been of great interest to me..
This was also quite a different time. Part of the "logic" was that people
> Don't want to beat this to death, Bill, but the discrepancies and
> outright inaccuracies of so-called "eyewitness accounts" have
> always been of great interest to me..
sitting safe in the live boats, and not struggling for their lives, "of
course" were better witnesses. The phenomena of witness fallibility was
only barely suspected. And more along those lines. Part of the problem in
understanding how such things worked, then, is that we tend to evaluate by
what we know, now.
Another example. It's such common sense that they should have slowed down
with ice about, no moon, and no breeze that it's common to say the captain
acted stupidly. Well, yeah, but his behavior was not uncommon. In general
(there were exceptions) ships continued at their normal speed until ice was
actually sighted, or visibility was impaired, such as with fog or rain.
I've always thought that Smith's real mistake was in not realizing that the
situation was actually one of impaired visibility despite it being a totally
clear night.
- Bill
ckoz...@snet.net
May 13, 2012, 7:10:57 AM5/13/12
to
Thank HEAVENS there wasn't a Fox News around at the time! They'd have us believing head-on collisions, gunfights breaking out, mass riots at the lifeboats, and blaming those 'nosy liberals' for telling ship owners how many lifeboats they must hang on their boat decks. LMAO!
Bill Leary
May 14, 2012, 7:28:00 PM5/14/12
to
wrote in message
news:26929120.1073.1336739199604.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbli11...
For a single example (documented, written and spoken), from the British
Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry, Day 4, Testimony of Reginald R. Lee.
Reginald Lee was one of the two lookouts on duty in the crows nest at the
time of the collision.
http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq04Lee01.php
2432. Then you said you saw her head veer to port?
- Yes.
2433. Where did you get the iceberg - on what side of you?
- On the starboard hand as she was veering to port.
2434. You had the iceberg on your starboard side?
- Yes.
2435. You were on the starboard side of the crow's-nest, you told us?
- Just at that time I happened to be right in front of the nest, because as
the nest is semi-circular the telephone is in the corner of the nest on the
starboard side. My mate was telephoning from there, and I was standing in
the front of the nest watching the boat.
> So while I'm sticking with a port-side collision, we may actually never
> know.
No, we know. It's been known since 11:40 PM, Sunday, April 14, 1912.
A few minutes searching the British and/or American inquiry records will
show numerous instances, spoken, written and documented, that the iceberg
documentation, numerous eye-witness reports, and examination of the wreck
all contradict you. And note that these eyewitnesses had light, from the
ship itself.
- Bill
news:26929120.1073.1336739199604.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbli11...
> Even the side of the ship meeting the iceberg was NEVER ACTUALLY
> documented, either written or spoken.
Incorrect.
> documented, either written or spoken.
For a single example (documented, written and spoken), from the British
Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry, Day 4, Testimony of Reginald R. Lee.
Reginald Lee was one of the two lookouts on duty in the crows nest at the
time of the collision.
http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq04Lee01.php
2432. Then you said you saw her head veer to port?
- Yes.
2433. Where did you get the iceberg - on what side of you?
- On the starboard hand as she was veering to port.
2434. You had the iceberg on your starboard side?
- Yes.
2435. You were on the starboard side of the crow's-nest, you told us?
- Just at that time I happened to be right in front of the nest, because as
the nest is semi-circular the telephone is in the corner of the nest on the
starboard side. My mate was telephoning from there, and I was standing in
the front of the nest watching the boat.
> So while I'm sticking with a port-side collision, we may actually never
> know.
A few minutes searching the British and/or American inquiry records will
show numerous instances, spoken, written and documented, that the iceberg
struck on the starboard side.
You can take whatever position and have whatever opinion you like. But the
documentation, numerous eye-witness reports, and examination of the wreck
all contradict you. And note that these eyewitnesses had light, from the
ship itself.
- Bill
sdavmor
May 14, 2012, 7:47:47 PM5/14/12
to
<http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/AmInq18Barrett01.php>
As Bill Leary said elsewhere, both the US and English inquiries have
numerous on record statements as to where the impact on Titanic's hull
occurred.
Diogenes
May 14, 2012, 7:52:21 PM5/14/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 01:50:35 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
By "impaired visibility" I presume you refer to Tim Maltin's
assertion that the unusual weather conditions created a thermal
inversion, which caused a strong light refraction and misleading
visual observations:
(http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Did-the-Titanic-Sink-Because-of-an-Optical-Illusion.html)
Mr. Maltin's theory would explain two mysteries - why the Titanic's
lookouts did not spot the iceberg earlier and also the response (or
lack thereof) of the SS Californian. Some years ago I read an
interview with a Titanic "expert". The interviewer asked him where he
would like to have been during the crucial hours of the disaster. His
surprising reply was "On the bridge of the Californian, so see exactly
what the hell _they_ thought was going on!"
assertion that the unusual weather conditions created a thermal
inversion, which caused a strong light refraction and misleading
visual observations:
(http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Did-the-Titanic-Sink-Because-of-an-Optical-Illusion.html)
Mr. Maltin's theory would explain two mysteries - why the Titanic's
lookouts did not spot the iceberg earlier and also the response (or
lack thereof) of the SS Californian. Some years ago I read an
interview with a Titanic "expert". The interviewer asked him where he
would like to have been during the crucial hours of the disaster. His
surprising reply was "On the bridge of the Californian, so see exactly
what the hell _they_ thought was going on!"
sdavmor
May 14, 2012, 8:01:30 PM5/14/12
to
they do the underwater closeup you see the port side of the ship running
along a spur getting ripped "like a tin-opener" (as Lightoller says in
this version of the tale). Nothing above water so there was nothing to
have prevented the studio fixing the problem by reversing the film had
they caught it in time.
Bubba
May 14, 2012, 10:10:40 PM5/14/12
to
else they didn't consider it to be an historical error. One other
possibility is that they weren't too concerned with historical accuracy
but were more interested in making an entertaining film that would fill
theater seats and earn box office receipts. Whatever their reasons,
it seems that the starboard side collision agrees with the majority of
extant eyewitness testimony, studies of the wreckage of the ill-fated
luxury liner, and the most common depictions in film and literature.
Not to change the subject, but I've read that the single most studied
artifact in recorded history is the Great Pyramid, and the single most
studied disaster in recorded history is the sinking of the RMS Titanic.
For an unlucky ship, the Titanic became the world's most famous vessel.
There have been many other famous ships and famous disasters, so I
wonder why did the Titanic end up topping the list over everything else
in recorded history? That in itself is an enigma.
--
Bub
ckoz...@snet.net
May 14, 2012, 10:43:26 PM5/14/12
to
Titanic herself was nothing to sniff at! The Germans had already begun framing out the huge Imperator trio(each 5,000 grt larger than the Olympic trio) while the paint in Titanic's dining salon was drying. Titanic was a huge leap forward size-wise over Cunard's Mauretania-Lusitania. Today Titanic would be considered small.
It was the practical who's who of society booking Titanic a year in advance that permanently cemented Titanic into the public zeitgeist, along with one of the most aggressively bankrolled marketing campaigns on behalf of White Star Line of her luxury appointments.
It was not the ship, but the combination of circumstances surrounding how she came to meet that iceberg that night. And no binoculars in the crowd nest. Lifeboats that even if fully loaded would still carry only 1/2 of her capacity. And no 24 hour radio watch.
It was the practical who's who of society booking Titanic a year in advance that permanently cemented Titanic into the public zeitgeist, along with one of the most aggressively bankrolled marketing campaigns on behalf of White Star Line of her luxury appointments.
It was not the ship, but the combination of circumstances surrounding how she came to meet that iceberg that night. And no binoculars in the crowd nest. Lifeboats that even if fully loaded would still carry only 1/2 of her capacity. And no 24 hour radio watch.
Bubba
May 15, 2012, 12:31:13 AM5/15/12
to
the "full steam ahead" recklessness of her captain and those of
influence whom had persuaded him to pursue that unwise maximum speed
which resulted in the most discussed and dissected disaster in world
history. Perhaps the worst arrogance leads to the finest disasters?
No doubt that the mere mention of a formerly obscure book published
in 1898 entitled 'Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan' proved so
ominously similar that "debunkers" from far and abroad swarmed over
the uncanny prediction which, to this day, looms like a black cloud
over the heads of as many as -- like it or not -- still remember.
--
Bub
Bill Leary
May 15, 2012, 7:25:31 AM5/15/12
to
"Diogenes" wrote in message
news:7l53r79ugr6nq5fu8...@4ax.com...
make the base of an obstruction (iceberg, disabled ship, whatever) plus at
least some moon to enhance that surf action. This particular night there
was no wave action at all and no moon. Both of the factors that would have
made it possible to see an iceberg at a distance were missing.
Functionally, impaired visibility. A situation they should have treated as
being the same as haze or fog.
Yes, I've read Matlin's theory. It's interesting, and anyone who's seen a
mirage will understand how it could happen, but I don't think I buy it for
this situation.
- Bill
news:7l53r79ugr6nq5fu8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 01:50:35 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>>Another example. It's such common sense that they should have slowed down
>>with ice about, no moon, and no breeze that it's common to say the captain
>>acted stupidly. Well, yeah, but his behavior was not uncommon. In
>>general
>>(there were exceptions) ships continued at their normal speed until ice
>>was
>>actually sighted, or visibility was impaired, such as with fog or rain.
>>I've always thought that Smith's real mistake was in not realizing that
>>the
>>situation was actually one of impaired visibility despite it being a
>>totally
>>clear night.
>
>By "impaired visibility" I presume you refer to Tim Maltin's
>assertion that the unusual weather conditions created a thermal
>inversion, which caused a strong light refraction and misleading
>visual observations:
>(http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Did-the-Titanic-Sink-Because-of-an-Optical-Illusion.html)
No. I mean that normally there would have had some wave action, which would
> wrote:
>>Another example. It's such common sense that they should have slowed down
>>with ice about, no moon, and no breeze that it's common to say the captain
>>acted stupidly. Well, yeah, but his behavior was not uncommon. In
>>general
>>(there were exceptions) ships continued at their normal speed until ice
>>was
>>actually sighted, or visibility was impaired, such as with fog or rain.
>>I've always thought that Smith's real mistake was in not realizing that
>>the
>>situation was actually one of impaired visibility despite it being a
>>totally
>>clear night.
>
>By "impaired visibility" I presume you refer to Tim Maltin's
>assertion that the unusual weather conditions created a thermal
>inversion, which caused a strong light refraction and misleading
>visual observations:
>(http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Did-the-Titanic-Sink-Because-of-an-Optical-Illusion.html)
make the base of an obstruction (iceberg, disabled ship, whatever) plus at
least some moon to enhance that surf action. This particular night there
was no wave action at all and no moon. Both of the factors that would have
made it possible to see an iceberg at a distance were missing.
Functionally, impaired visibility. A situation they should have treated as
being the same as haze or fog.
Yes, I've read Matlin's theory. It's interesting, and anyone who's seen a
mirage will understand how it could happen, but I don't think I buy it for
this situation.
- Bill
Diogenes
May 28, 2012, 10:49:56 PM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 01:50:35 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
that the Titanic sank intact rather than breaking apart, as some
eyewitnesses claimed. I'm reading "Gilded Lives, Fatal Voyage" by Hugh
Brewster, which focuses less on the Titanic herself and more on the
personalities and experiences of the passengers.
Page 241 -
"But [Archibald] Gracie [a Washington aristocrat and amateur
historian] and [Second Officer Charles] Lightoller firmly believed
that the ship had sunk intact -- a view that would become the
prevailing opinion for the next seventy-three years. Gracie thought
that Norris Williams and Jack Thayer, ' the two young men cited as
authority . . of the break-in-two theory ' had confused the falling
funnel for the ship breaking apart. But both Williams and Thayer knew
exactly what they had seen, as did some other eyewitnesses. On the
Carpathia, Jack Thayer described the stages of the ship's sinking and
breaking apart to Lewis Skidmore, a Brooklyn art teacher, who drew the
sketches that were later featured in many newspapers. The innacuracies
in Skidmore's drawings, however only bolstered the belief that the
ship had, in fact, sunk intact."
The acceptance of the "sank intact" version was undoubtedly due to the
fact that it was supported by Second Officer Lightoller. The testimony
of an experienced ship's officer would certainly take precedence over
that of a seventeen year old student (Thayer) and a twenty-one year
old tennis player (Williams). Only in this case the experienced ship's
officer was mistaken.
wrote:
>"Diogenes" wrote in message
>news:3b6uq7dpquarbjc60...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 May 2012 23:31:01 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>> They didn't just take the professionals opinions. There were other
>>> witnesses, the majority, who said she sank intact.
>>
>> However "the majority" of the witnesses were obviously wrong. So why
>> ((..omitted..))
>>
>> Don't want to beat this to death, Bill, but the discrepancies and
>> outright inaccuracies of so-called "eyewitness accounts" have
>> always been of great interest to me..
>
>This was also quite a different time. Part of the "logic" was that people
>sitting safe in the live boats, and not struggling for their lives, "of
>course" were better witnesses. The phenomena of witness fallibility was
>only barely suspected. And more along those lines. Part of the problem in
>understanding how such things worked, then, is that we tend to evaluate by
>what we know, now.
I believe I have found an explanation for the prevelance of the belief
>"Diogenes" wrote in message
>news:3b6uq7dpquarbjc60...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 May 2012 23:31:01 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>> They didn't just take the professionals opinions. There were other
>>> witnesses, the majority, who said she sank intact.
>>
>> However "the majority" of the witnesses were obviously wrong. So why
>> ((..omitted..))
>>
>> Don't want to beat this to death, Bill, but the discrepancies and
>> outright inaccuracies of so-called "eyewitness accounts" have
>> always been of great interest to me..
>
>This was also quite a different time. Part of the "logic" was that people
>sitting safe in the live boats, and not struggling for their lives, "of
>course" were better witnesses. The phenomena of witness fallibility was
>only barely suspected. And more along those lines. Part of the problem in
>understanding how such things worked, then, is that we tend to evaluate by
>what we know, now.
that the Titanic sank intact rather than breaking apart, as some
eyewitnesses claimed. I'm reading "Gilded Lives, Fatal Voyage" by Hugh
Brewster, which focuses less on the Titanic herself and more on the
personalities and experiences of the passengers.
Page 241 -
"But [Archibald] Gracie [a Washington aristocrat and amateur
historian] and [Second Officer Charles] Lightoller firmly believed
that the ship had sunk intact -- a view that would become the
prevailing opinion for the next seventy-three years. Gracie thought
that Norris Williams and Jack Thayer, ' the two young men cited as
authority . . of the break-in-two theory ' had confused the falling
funnel for the ship breaking apart. But both Williams and Thayer knew
exactly what they had seen, as did some other eyewitnesses. On the
Carpathia, Jack Thayer described the stages of the ship's sinking and
breaking apart to Lewis Skidmore, a Brooklyn art teacher, who drew the
sketches that were later featured in many newspapers. The innacuracies
in Skidmore's drawings, however only bolstered the belief that the
ship had, in fact, sunk intact."
The acceptance of the "sank intact" version was undoubtedly due to the
fact that it was supported by Second Officer Lightoller. The testimony
of an experienced ship's officer would certainly take precedence over
that of a seventeen year old student (Thayer) and a twenty-one year
old tennis player (Williams). Only in this case the experienced ship's
officer was mistaken.
ckoz...@snet.net
May 29, 2012, 7:43:12 AM5/29/12
to
It's human nature. Generalistically - and not just in the case of Titanic sinking - we are taught from childhood about "respecting authority" and respecting authoritIES on certain subjects.
It starts with listening to our parents, and to any aunts, uncles, and grandparents present. We then learn as preteens and teens to respect law enforcement, the media, the clergy, firefighters, the military - and yes, ships' officers. It is then tied into our minds with "God & Country". Questioning, countermanding, suggesting an alternative to what is commonly accepted, and even performing ones own research, are seen as disrespect, rebellion, and lately, as terrorism! Certain things are to be believed simply because that is what we are told. Science has no part, and is seen as meddling in the workings of the almighty.
It's no wonder then that so many falsehoods surrounding Titanics' fate stood the test of time until the mid-80s & 1990s!
It starts with listening to our parents, and to any aunts, uncles, and grandparents present. We then learn as preteens and teens to respect law enforcement, the media, the clergy, firefighters, the military - and yes, ships' officers. It is then tied into our minds with "God & Country". Questioning, countermanding, suggesting an alternative to what is commonly accepted, and even performing ones own research, are seen as disrespect, rebellion, and lately, as terrorism! Certain things are to be believed simply because that is what we are told. Science has no part, and is seen as meddling in the workings of the almighty.
It's no wonder then that so many falsehoods surrounding Titanics' fate stood the test of time until the mid-80s & 1990s!
0 new messages