Edmund Fitzgerald exploration

Richard,

I have seen animations of that sort of event, usually with the ship spanning across two waves, and breaking in the middle.

This sort of failure is not, I gather, an uncommon failure, even in ships that do not have pre-existing damage.

Wayne
 
I know I have seen some hay made of the fact that the Fitz was progressively allowed to take on more cargo, and sit lower in the water than when she was new.

Wayne
 
I think I know of the animation that Wayne is talking about it has been around the web for sometime.

Come October some more information should be released concerning the hull condition on the bottom. I think it is safe to say that it was either the "V" type theory that Richard is suggesting or the an upside down "V" as others have suggested.
 
NOAA has published some more information on the weather conditions when the Fitz went down. There will also be some information regarding the wreck to come out soon.

Go to www.noaa.gov for more info.
 
I've read a few books about the Fitz recently and it has got me thinking. The location of the wreckage, how it is arranged and somewhat close together, seems to me (and this is a theory only) that she must have gone down generally intact. I would think that with the power of the waves that night, if there was a break up on the surface, the two sections of the wreck would lie further apart due to the currents taking one half of the ship a ways from the other. I believe the Carl Bradley is know to have split apart on the surface due to the survival of two crew members. I also have seen a picture of the wheelhouse of the Bradley wreck. If that ship lies further apart on the ocean floor than the Fitz does, would such strengthen the intact vs surface break up of the ship? Then there is the case of the Daniel J Morrell and survivors from that wreck have a chilling tale of how the ship broke in two and later the bow and stern collided after breaking up. Again, any information of the wreck of this ship? One could go a lot of directions with such though, just wondered if anyone else has thought about such and would care to chat about it more? Thanks.
 
Well with a little research, I see I've confounded my theory a bit. While both parts of the Bradley wreck are pretty close together, I've found the Morrell wreck pieces to be quite far apart. That answers that question but raises others and adds to the Fitz sinking scenario. Can't say any of this is boring!
 
TOM: There is a wonderful special on the FITZ which appears regularly on the History Channel's "Dive Detectives". I believe they theorized the Fitz broke apart at the surface...keel first...owing to a rouge wave.
It was intersting to watch the retrieval of the ship's bell, via a "JIMSUIT" diver. However it almost resulted in a fatal accident for the diver.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
POSTSCRIPT: I agree, nothing here that we discuss is boring...the more we learn about a particular shipwreck...the more we yearn to know.
BTW, have you ever seen any wreck images of the "Mighty" H.M.S. Hood? Incredible!

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Nice to hear from you Micheal. I think I did see that show a few times now, I think it is called Deep Sea Detectives. They basically narrowed it down to two scenarios. I saw the "JIMSUIT" diver piece, it was interesting technology at work, the suit, the procedure and when the bell came loose after his efforts with the cutting torch it just missed hitting him. I was just thinking about the Fitz wreck site as a whole, just the way the wreckage is laid out, that maybe like a plane crash, one could look at how the pieces are arranged and come up with some theory about the manner in which they got there. The poor HMS Hood, sad to see the last survivor pass just a short time ago. I had read that dives to the wreck where showing the massive damage done to the ship, it sounded pretty bad, but also interesting. Last I heard the USS Indianapolis has basically not been found, minus some debris, despite earlier claims. Back to the Big Fitz though, I believe the same two guys who did/do Deep Sea Detectives have written a new book on Titanic, I've got it downstairs, I must get my library of such topics nearer to my computer for better referencing. Their work is helping to support new theories on how the ship broke up. In a flat calm, there is quite a large array of pieces of the Titanic. Of course she is much deeper than the Fitz, but I'm coming from the same train of thought, where the Fitz's remains are, how they are shaped etc; couldn't that be reconstructed in reverse? I think I'm with Captain Cooper on the whole matter, that the ship nose dived and broke up while doing so, but that's just my thoughts for now.
 
"BTW have you ever seen any wreck images of the "Mighty" H.M.S. Hood? Incredible!"

I have the book "Hood" and "Bismarck": The Deep-sea Discovery of an Epic Battle by David Mearns and Rob White, which contains a bunch of pictures. It really brings home the magnitude of the forces that destroyed her.
 
JEFF, correct about ARIZONA, and when they sent a
"swimming eyeball" into the wreck to ascertain
the extent of her oil leak, lo and behold there are still cloths hung and writing paper on a desk of an officer's quarters. Perhaps the enormous depth of HOOD's demise played a part in the *utter* destruction? As well as the BISMARCK's 16" volley of rnds.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Back
Top