The Jack Grimm propeller photo or image?

[IanMcD]

Jack Grimm mounted expeditions in the early 1980s to locate the wreck of the Titanic. The ships used in the search towed sonar devices and apparently one of them captured an image that supposedly looked like a ship's propeller. Grimm thought it belonged to the Titanic but this was never confirmed. Is this image available anywhere to the public? I've heard about this apparent propeller sighting for years but I've never seen it anywhere despite many online searches.

 

[thorndyke]

There is a mosaic photograph of the propeller in the book Beyond Reach. Its not much, but its there.

 

[alanrutledge]

Jack Grimm mounted expeditions in the early 1980s to locate the wreck of the Titanic. The ships used in the search towed sonar devices and apparently one of them captured an image that supposedly looked like a ship's propeller. Grimm thought it belonged to the Titanic but this was never confirmed. Is this image available anywhere to the public? I've heard about this apparent propeller sighting for years but I've never seen it anywhere despite many online searches.

Believe it or not there is a pretty cool DVD called ‘the titanic expedition, the discovery’ from 1998. This documentary is 50 minutes of footage from the Jack Grimm expedition(s). Even though the DVD is crap quality the story of his expeditions is really the American dream. It’s a must watch for the salivate and discovery history buffs. It includes a video of the monitor on the boat which was dragging a camera over the so called propeller. So you can watch and judge for yourself.

Personally, there is no way it was a blade. It looks more like an odd rock formation to me. Another viable explanation is that it was actually a propeller blade form the Olympic which I’ve heard lost a blade in the similar area. It’s a reach for sure though.

`https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/6305248001/?tag=encyclopediat-21

 

[Aaron_2016]

Jack Grimm mounted expeditions in the early 1980s to locate the wreck of the Titanic. The ships used in the search towed sonar devices and apparently one of them captured an image that supposedly looked like a ship's propeller. Grimm thought it belonged to the Titanic but this was never confirmed. Is this image available anywhere to the public? I've heard about this apparent propeller sighting for years but I've never seen it anywhere despite many online searches.

It looks very much like one of Titanic's propeller blades.

I made this video about the missing blade.


youtube:gK6r7ICfSkQ

Believe it or not there is a pretty cool DVD called ‘the titanic expedition, the discovery’ from 1998........

The Olympic lost several blades, but I understand they were all within one day's reach of Southampton, so the blade found near the wreck could not be from the Olympic. Judging by its size and shape it looks like the missing one from the Titanic's starboard propeller.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

It looks very much like one of Titanic's propeller blades.


View attachment 40173

So comparing an image from the movie Titanic which were not even close to the ones Titanic had?

Judging by its size and shape it looks like the missing one from the Titanic's starboard propeller.

Aside that there is no missing one.
If it is Titanic how does it get there? Do you want to tell us Titanic steamed back during sinking?

The scientist which took part on the Grimm expedition all disagree with his claim about a propeller blade. Even IF it is a propeller blade, there were many other steam ships which lost a blade on the north Atlantic and not only Olympic.

 

[Aaron_2016]

There is a blade missing from the starboard propeller. That is very clear to see from the photos. The image from the Titanic film was just a template to show the angle in which the blade came to rest on the seafloor. How did it get there? It fell during the collision because that is what the survivors stated. I would not be surprised if more felt the blade falling than the actual collision itself. Regarding Grimm's expedition. Do you have a source which says all the scientists that took part in Grimm's expedition disagreed with him that it was a propeller blade? No source = no truth in that claim. Grimm believed the camera went over the tail end of the wreck and he believed they had found the entire wreck and he thought the blade they saw was still attached to it. That claim can easily be debunked, but the actual sighting of the blade was not. The blade was measured to be the same size as one from the Titanic. It is resting about 3 miles from the wreck. The scientists who took part in the expedition believed the wreck could have drifted up to 4 miles with the current. Looking at the seafloor we can see there was a strong current which pushed everything towards the east north east. e.g. The heavier wreckage compared to the lighter wreckage, and the bodies that were later found on the surface etc. Everything points to the ship drifting in that direction, so it makes sense that if the ship sank nearly 3 hours after the collision then it would have drifted a considerable distance away from the blade.




Titanic pushed east north east.

The wreckage is scattered in the same direction towards the east north east.

The bodies were found east north east of the wreck. Working back along the track we can see that a straight line leads us to the position of the blade.


circle 1 - blade
circle 2 - location of wreck
circle 3 - direction bodies were found

.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

There is a blade missing from the starboard propeller. That is very clear to see from the photos.

1. What is clear from the photo is that the third blade is buried in the mud.
2. Undersea currents do not generally follow surface currents. The surface currents took Titanic from the point she came to a stop to the location of the wreck, specifically to the center of the boiler field, when she foundered.
3. Titanic's central propeller is also buried in the mud. It would be nice if we can view it since a H&W notebook says that Titanic had a 3-bladed central prop while Olympic had a 4-bladed one.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

There is a blade missing from the starboard propeller. That is very clear to see from the photos.

The holes you have pointed out in another post on this ET Forum were too small to be holes from those screws.

How did it get there? It fell during the collision because that is what the survivors stated. I would not be surprised if more felt the blade falling than the actual collision itself.

Survivors only stated how the vibration feel to them and that it reminds them of a lost propeller blade. Or do you have anyone stating he saw it fell off? Do you have anyone stating he saw the propellers out of the water with a missing blade on the starboard one? Why did Quartermaster Rowe said the blade did not hit the ice?

Regarding Grimm's expedition. Do you have a source which says all the scientists that took part in Grimm's expedition disagreed with him that it was a propeller blade? No source = no truth in that claim.

Maybe you want to watch the footage about the expedition? If I remember right the DVD was called "The Titanic Expedition - The Discovery". There is also mention in this book that scientist who took part with his expedition were not sure about the blade.

The Search for the Titanic



Sorry the only one here making untrue claims are you.

 

[Aaron_2016]

.......Sorry the only one here making untrue claims are you.

I'm stating my beliefs by basing my conclusions on what the survivors experienced and what I can see in the research photos and film. I am not making any formal claims. Lighten up. I see the blade is missing. That is my belief and everyone is entitled to their own opinion on every subject. Until further research can be made the missing propeller blade is an open debate and its whereabouts can not be confirmed or denied.

.

 

[Rob Lawes]

Look at where your arrow is pointing Aaron. The wing propellors had three blades therefore each blade was 120 degrees around the 360 degree hub.

Your arrow pointing to the alleged broken fixing is almost opposite the blade on the other side and looks to be 90 degrees or slightly less from the blade pointing upwards. There is no way that patch of rust marks the point at which a blade is mounted. The blade is under the mud.

As for passengers testimony on this matter. We know that there was an impact with the berg that some would have felt which people would have noticed. We also know that an engine order was given, most likely to stop. When the engines were brought to a stop the shafts stop turning and the propellers are dragged through the water causing them to cavitate like hell. That would cause an appreciable amount of vibration especially through the stern area of the ship.

Finally we have Greaser Scott who was in the turbine room on the starboard side. Nowhere in his testimony does he describe an impact or anything that sounds like a lost blade. He was also aware of engine movements after impact. A prop shaft with a lost blade is going to badly vibrate and would be immediately obvious to all concerned. No one in the engine spaces testified about this.

 

[Rancor]

3. Titanic's central propeller is also buried in the mud. It would be nice if we can view it since a H&W notebook says that Titanic had a 3-bladed central prop while Olympic had a 4-bladed one.

This is quite interesting, and hopefully a quick look with a sonar during the next dive would settle the matter.

Interesting how after all these years new information still comes to light that can significantly change ones understanding of the ship.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Look at where your arrow is pointing Aaron. The wing propellors had three blades therefore each blade was 120 degrees around the 360 degree hub.....

The picture of the starboard propeller shows a large gap where the mounting of the blade and bolts should be. Judging the distance between each blade's mounting I can see the 3rd blade's mounting and bolts that held it in place are gone.

Olympic's blades in 1911. The mounting and bolts should be there but it's not. There is also no disturbance in the sand, so nothing underneath has driving the sand up and around the propeller.

Fred Scott said - "I felt a shock and I thought it was something in the main engine room which had gone wrong." Survivors in the smoking room felt the vibration underneath them and also felt a twisting motion as the blade the broke off. Mr. Woolner and Mr. Everett said it was - "A sort of slowing down, and then we sort of felt a rip that gave a sort of a slight twist to the whole room." and "It was a twisting motion that shook the boat terribly." When the Olympic lost her blade the Duke of Newcastle said - "The big ship swerved like a train rounding a curve." The same kind of vibration was also felt on both ships. Even survivors who felt it on the Olympic believed the exact same thing had happened on the Titanic.

When the stern struck the sea floor it smeared itself into the sand and turned. One would expect to see the 3rd blade leaving a deep impression in the sand as the stern turned clockwise but there are no deep impressions of the 3rd blade next to the starboard propeller, so I can't believe the 3rd blade was in place when she struck the sea floor because the hull smeared clockwise into the sand but not the 3rd blade, and I believe it had already fallen off.

The strong vibration was felt immediately after the collision followed by a second shock. The order to stop engines was given just as the collision took place, but by the time the propellers stopped and caused the ship to coast forwards and vibrate the iceberg would have been long gone, but survivors said the long vibration occurred immediately during and after the collision followed by another shock while the iceberg was in close sight. Rowe did not think the iceberg had struck the blades, but what was he basing his beliefs on? He also thought the engines were going full speed astern as the iceberg passed the stern and he instinctively pulled in the log line. We know she was not going full astern, so it makes sense that this violent vibration that he felt was the moment the blade broke off and he mistook it for the engines going full astern. Quite a number of survivors including Lightoller and Ismay thought they had lost a blade. I believe it is much more likely that it did fall and that it was found by Grimm. He thought he had found the entire wreck by claiming it was Titanic's blade and that the ship was right beside it. That was something he believed and maintained and naturally his team could not confirm the ship was right beside the blade and they were not prepared to support Grimm's discovery. There was nothing said about the Titanic losing a blade during the collision and the ship being found further away. The absence of that does not mean the blade is not Titanic's. On the contrary I firmly believe it is. It just hasn't been explored again as the discovery of the wreck took far greater precedence over the blade.

 

[Rob Lawes]

Ironically your picture of the Olympic's prop actually proves my point. Look at the orientation of the prop in the picture and then Titanic's on the sea bed. They are almost identical. Apart from the fact you are looking at one from the front and one from the rear the blades are almost perfectly aligned. One up, one on the side and one down. What this clearly shows us that the bolts on the boss are all below the mud.

Aaron, do you honestly believe the sea bed around the Titanic has remained the same since the last item of wreckage reached the sea bed? That is frankly absurd. Over 100 years and countless expeditions to the wreck have disturbed the sea floor.

If you believe that no evidence of a scrape indicates a blade missing on the starboard prop could you show me a scrape on the sea bed made by the port prop which we can assume was undamaged?

As soon as the engines started to slow the vibrations / cavitation would begin. How many passengers had been on a vessel that had struck a berg before? Those that had been on a ship that had lost a blade assumed it was that but that doesn't mean it was that.

A wave slapping the side of a hull can cause the hull to quiver a little and we are talking about a massive ship sliding along thousands of tons of ice. The hull will move react in a number of ways.

Fred Scott felt a shock as you said but thought the issue was in the engine room forward of where he was. If it was a prop issue it would have been aft of the turbine room.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Ironically your picture of the Olympic's prop actually proves my point. Look at the orientation of the prop in the picture and then Titanic's on the sea bed. They are almost identical. Apart from the fact you are looking at one from the front and one from the rear the blades are almost perfectly aligned. One up, one on the side and one down. What this clearly shows us that the bolts on the boss are all below the mud.

Rob, I fully agree with you.

 

[IanMcD]

Believe it or not there is a pretty cool DVD called ‘the titanic expedition, the discovery’ from 1998. This documentary is 50 minutes of footage from the Jack Grimm expedition(s). Even though the DVD is crap quality the story of his expeditions is really the American dream. It’s a must watch for the salivate and discovery history buffs. It includes a video of the monitor on the boat which was dragging a camera over the so called propeller. So you can watch and judge for yourself.

Personally, there is no way it was a blade. It looks more like an odd rock formation to me. Another viable explanation is that it was actually a propeller blade form the Olympic which I’ve heard lost a blade in the similar area. It’s a reach for sure though.

`https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/6305248001/?tag=encyclopediat-21

Thank you, Alan. I will check that out.