Superior mirage and the Californian

[Aaron_2016]

Which is not included in his 1912 sworn testimony!

You can post quotes of people mentioning that she lost a blade as you like, it does not chance anything to the fact that the blade is buried. The "blade" Jack Grimm found does not belong to a Olympic Class ship.

He was not asked what the engines were doing and therefore did not mention it at the Inquiry. Do you have proof that the blade is buried and that the irregular gap that can be seen is normal, and that no scarring and no mount of sand would build up, and do you have proof that the blade found by Jack Grimm was not from an OIympic class ship? Without convincing proof I can't believe the blade is still mounted to the propeller.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

We already had that discussion. I do not see any reason to go over it again because you are posting it for the 5th or 6th time.

For loosing a blade as you claim, the iceberg had to hit the propeller/blade and there should have been a "shock" at that moment. Rowe was clear the ice did not hit it! You have 0 proof. And as for Grimm, the scientist who were with him believed it was a rock. Look it up his documentary about that expedition. And comparing that Grimm image with Olympic blades from 1911 the difference is quite easy to see.

And here is a good proof why the blade is not visible.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Rowe thought the engines were going full astern. There is 0 proof that they were. It should stand to reason that what he was feeling was not the engines reversing but was in fact the blade being damaged and being thrown off. That simulated image is not accurate as the bolts are not even visible and as the photos I presented above shows the bolts were very close to each other blade and we can see very clearly that the gap is significantly larger where the missing blade's bolts should be, with no disturbance to the sand, no mound of sand driven up, and no scarring of the sand adjacent to the propeller. There is 0 evidence that the blade is there. Jack Grimm believed he discovered a blade. I have seen the footage and it clearly in my judgment looks like a large blade and in their study they concluded that it belonged to a large passenger ship. The location of the blade also correlates to the direction the current was moving which draws an arrow directly to the wreck, and the debris field, lifeboats and bodies. They were all carried along by the same force. I am convinced that the blade is not on the wreck, but is where Jack Grimm found it.

 

[Rob Lawes]

That simulated image is not accurate as the bolts are not even visible and as the photos I presented above shows the bolts were very close to each other blade and we can see very clearly that the gap is significantly larger where the missing blade's bolts should be,

Except Aaron, in your "highly accurate" picture you show above. In the bottom pair, if you look at the left picture (the black and white picture) the blades are (starting at the 9 O'Clock position, front to back, front to back, front to back as you go around clockwise. In your mock up photo to the right of that, starting at the same 9 O'clock position, you have the blades going, back to front, front to back on your mock up, then back to front again. You have rotated your mock up blade through 180 degrees to make it appear that the front of the blade would be above the sand line.

So now who has the accurate picture?

edit: and looking at it again, you have transposed the blades in ALL of your examples so they are not accurate at all.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Except Aaron, in your "highly accurate" picture you show above. In the bottom pair, if you look at the left picture (the black and white picture) the blades are (starting at the 9 O'Clock position, front to back, front to back, front to back as you go around clockwise. In your mock up photo to the right of that, starting at the same 9 O'clock position, you have the blades going, back to front, front to back on your mock up, then back to front again. You have rotated your mock up blade through 180 degrees to make it appear that the front of the blade would be above the sand line.

So now who has the accurate picture?

edit: and looking at it again, you have transposed the blades in ALL of your examples so they are not accurate at all.

I presented the pictures In relation to the gap. I am focusing on the bolts that secured the blades in place and the distance between each blade. The propellers can be turned any way they wish, it is immaterial as I just wanted to present and compare the accurate 'distance' between each blade and how close the bolts were to each other by using photos taken at various angles to demonstrate how close they were.

e.g.

So far there has been no convincing evidence to suggest the blade is there. The gap on the left is nothing like the gap on the right. Without doubt I believe the blade is not bolted to the propeller. Everybody is free to examine and come to their own conclusions, but I believe the matter won't be resolved until a full examination of the sea floor around the stern is made.


.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Rowe thought the engines were going full astern. There is 0 proof that they were.

Aside that you now contradict yourself, Dillon & Scott both stated that the engines were going slow astern after the collision. No one mentioned something strange.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

I presented the pictures In relation to the gap. I am focusing on the bolts that secured the blades in place and the distance between each blade.

The gap on the left is nothing like the gap on the right.
.

That is because you are comparing Titanic's propeller with Olympic's 1911. As already pointed out to you several times, the pitch & curves were different on Titanic (a proof is the document about the propellers from H&W) so your comparison is highly flawed.

 

[Aaron_2016]

That is because you are comparing Titanic's propeller with Olympic's 1911. As already pointed out to you several times, the pitch & curves were different on Titanic (a proof is the document about the propellers from H&W) so your comparison is highly flawed.

No, I was referring to the distance between each blade. Regardless of what ship the b&w photo came from. The irregular gap seen on one side of the starboard propeller is a strong indication that the blade is missing, especially when compared to the other side of the starboard propeller.

e.g.

This is what we should see (left) and this is what we actually see (right)

.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Aside that you now contradict yourself, Dillon & Scott both stated that the engines were going slow astern after the collision. No one mentioned something strange.

No, I didn't contradict myself. Dillon and Scott did not see or feel the engines going full speed astern despite being feet away from them below decks. Which confirms that the sensation Rowe felt on the poop deck (strong vibration under his feet as the iceberg passed the stern) had nothing to do with the engines and was most likely in my opinion the effect of the blade coming off which created the strong vibration which made him and others mistakenly believe the engines were going full speed astern as the iceberg passed the stern.

We can go around in circles for years. It isn't going to change my opinion on the evidence that I have read and seen. I am convinced the blade is not there. You are convinced it is still there. As Mark Baber said we can all agree to disagree.


.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

This is what we should see (left) and this is what we actually see (right)

.

No it is not what we should see, it is what YOU are claiming.

 

[Aaron_2016]

No it is not what we should see, it is what YOU are claiming.

Yes, that is what I am claiming we should see.

.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

No, I didn't contradict myself. Dillon and Scott did not see or feel the engines going full speed astern despite being feet away from them below decks.

I did not say anything about full speed astern. The engines were running slow astern and slow ahead. With a blade missing there would have been a vibration which neither Dillon & Scott mention any problems.

We can go around in circles for years. It isn't going to change my opinion on the evidence that I have read and seen.

Oh you mean like coming up for years that the engines were running full speed astern and correct everyone who was against you opinion. Now it is the missing blade. Now what is next?!

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Yes, that is what I am claiming we should see.

.

What "We" expect to see it what the wreck photo of the starboard propeller show.
The manipulated photoshop is what you want to believe and try to pass you idea as how it is.

You can believe what you like, it does not change anything to the facts.

 

[Aaron_2016]

More personal abuse. Here we go again. Your post has been reported (what's new) and Mark will have to step in again and tick you off. (and no you were not asking a simple question, you were personally attacking me and doing your best to provoke an argument because you can't win on this subject and can only resort to personal attacks in the hopes of discrediting all opposition to your views.)

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Yes, sadly here we are again. This is how every discussion with you turned out.
You made the drawings and try to convince people to believe your ideas. It is not what we should see or have to see.

Personal attack? Where exactly? (You mean like the one you did I quoted above about provoking argument etc.?)
Everybody can show up and discuss several points including drawings made by others as it is a free board.
However never mind...