Cam Houseman
Member
Why did they insist on an underwater break - up? And is their future titanic wreck animation correct?
Draining the Titanic sinking theory
- Thread starter Cam Houseman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sinking
Mark Baber
RIP
They? Who are "they"?
Cam Houseman
Member
the producers and the scientists, I mean. My bad
Mike Bull2019
Member
It's just a TV show, the 'wow' selling point of which was a (fairly average, TBH) CG sequence. GIven that dozens of survivors saw the ship break on the surface it is pretty safe to say that they were right, and the folk who made the TV were not!
Never take this stuff as your primary source- not documentaries, not the films.
Never take this stuff as your primary source- not documentaries, not the films.
Cam Houseman
Member
Ah, ok, thank you
Michael H. Standart
Member
A lot of the testimony was taken by way of affidavits submitted to the U.S. Senate Inquiry. You can read the inquiry transcripts for yourself at Titanic Inquiry Project - Main Page
A lot of the affidavits were taken on the 8th day of the investigation.
A lot of the affidavits were taken on the 8th day of the investigation.
Cam Houseman
Member
what's the difference between testimony and affidavits?
Michael H. Standart
Member
Affidavits were written statements which were taken individually in private sessions.
Cam Houseman
Member
oh ok thanks. So these survivors told the story, and someone recorded it in private? Or the survivor wrote a letter, like Elizabeth Shutes, then sent it in?
Michael H. Standart
Member
The affidavits/depositions that I know of were all recorded in private interviews.
atomicmouth
Member
I think Bill Lange's theory is really interesting, and I think he made a pretty straightforward and compelling argument about the debris field. I can't remember if he said it or if the narrator said it, but they did acknowledge the statements of the witnesses, although they discounted them by saying those people weren't in a good position to see the ship's breakup. I'm not sold on the idea, and I have no idea at all what debris is supposed to look like on the sea floor. But I also know there are conflicting accounts about the sinking, some survivors saying the ship split and others saying it didn't. I feel like all of the accounts are questionable because human perceptions are often distorted in times of stress, so I don't know who to believe. In situations like this, I tend to believe that the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes. In this case, I wonder if the ship started to split on the surface, creating a break that was just large enough to be visible to some survivors but maintaining a large and strong enough connection for the bow to drag the stern under, where the implosion of the stern finished the job. On the other hand, even as a layperson, I doubt an underwater separation would account for the great distance between the two main sections. To me, that may be the best evidence for a surface breakup. Putting aside the firsthand testimonies, what do y'all think about the debris field? Is there anything to what Lange says?
Kyle Naber
Member
As the years go on, we get a larger and larger collection of sinking testimony. You’d be pretty shocked to see the explicit descriptions of what survivors saw of the breakup. Those who insisted the ship went down whole were in the vast minority to be quite honest.
What did the Survivors See of the Break-up of the Titanic?
How many survivors claimed to see the ship break up?
To propose that the ship sank intact is quite the brow-raiser in 2023.
atomicmouth
Member
You may be right, and I'm well aware of how controversial Lange's theory is. It's also entirely possible that I'm underestimating the human mind's capacity for objective observation in crises. It's definitely true that I don't know about the testimonies. But I still hesitate to put all my eggs in the witness testimony basket because I think perception and memory are both often flawed. I'm more interested in the physical evidence. I have no idea how debris is supposed to behave as it sinks to the ocean floor, but I find Lange's explanation plausible enough to consider it. I'm not convinced, though. Like I said, the distance between the two halves is a huge problem (literally and figuratively) for Lange's idea, and it's possible there could be other explanations for the supposedly small radius of the debris field if Lange is right about how large it SHOULD be if the ship split on the surface. There may have been relatively few currents underwater that night, and there may have been other factors. For example, does the temperature of water affect the way objects sink in it?
atomicmouth
Member
I don't see a way to edit my last message, but I want to add that an acknowledgement that the amount of accounts that the ship broke on the surface lends credence to those accounts. I clicked on your link and have only read a few accounts so far. There are two things that strike me. One, the crew members are so far divided on what happened, and I feel like their accounts may have a little more weight than the passengers' because the crew would have had more experience at sea and would have known more about what was going on. I'll try to keep an eye on that as I read further. Two, in the sampling I've read, I've seen a lot of people saying they heard noises that they thought meant the ship was breaking and things like that. I have seen one or two accounts of people saying they could tell the ship broke even in the dark, but I still wonder if they could have been mistaken.
Again, I wonder about the possibility of a sort of hybrid scenario in which the upper decks split but the hull didn't. That could explain the different accounts as people saw the upper decks split but they weren't able to see the hull and they just assumed it had also split. On the other hand, there still would have been debris coming off the ship at that point, so if there's anything to this theory about the debris field, that would also disprove the hybrid break-up.
Again, I wonder about the possibility of a sort of hybrid scenario in which the upper decks split but the hull didn't. That could explain the different accounts as people saw the upper decks split but they weren't able to see the hull and they just assumed it had also split. On the other hand, there still would have been debris coming off the ship at that point, so if there's anything to this theory about the debris field, that would also disprove the hybrid break-up.
Arun Vajpey
Member
I don't agree with that as applied to the Titanic situation. The crew might have had experience with regular navigational and other shipboard matters, but none of them had seen a large ship - largest in the world at the time as a matter of fact - break into two main sections till then. In fact, I think the testimonies by the "inexperienced" passengers who reported that they saw the Titanic break apart is actually a bit more credible because they would have reported what they saw - or thought they saw - without fear of ridicule or corporate repercussions. On the other hand, some of the crew who thought that they saw the Titanic break might have hesitated to admit it because of the risk of being dismissed and ridiculed. An experienced crew member would have found it difficult to believe himself that a ship like the Titanic could actually break the way it did and so there is a good chance that many of them never mentioned it. But some crew members did and those statements, combined with those from the surviving passengers when collated and considered together, very strongly suggest that the titanic did indeed break apart at the surface very close to the manner that is now believed.
I did not find William Lange's theory very believable.
Similar threads
