Hello. Watched the theory video and theory does look quite good in my opinion. There are a few notes I would like to make though: 1. 3:45. Witnesses did indeed state that slow ahead was ordered. However, it seems from a few accounts that slow astern was ordered very briefly to slow the ship's forward momentum before slow ahead then final stop. 2. The starboard list would have to be atleast 2.5 degrees for a boat on the port side to come against the side on the way down. Boat 6 rubbed the side on the way down according to the quartermaster of the boat. Boat 6 was the only one at the port side to have such problems though. Those in Boat 8 mentioned having no issue keeping off the side on the way down. 3. It's more likely that 6 left before 8. Fredrick Fleet in the inquires stated they left first. Others seemed to imply or state 6 left before 8. Fredrick Fleet stated they go into the water at 1 AM. In Boat 8, Alfred Crawford and Margaret Swift stated they left the ship after 1 AM. Alfred Crawford stated collision was at 11;45 and Fredrick Fleet and the other lookouts were definetly using corrected time (Since there was a time change that night). When timings adjusted, this would put 6 before 8 as agreed with the more reliable evidence. Alfred Crawford also stated they had no issue keeping off the side on the way down but Hitchens in 6 reported they had to push away from the side at points. 6 probably left at 12:52 and 8 at 1:05 to account for these testimonies. 4. The order that Boats 12, 14 and 16 left in is open to debate, alot of contradictory testimony as to whether 12 or 14 left first amongst those 2. However, Frank Morris in 14 stated he lowered 12 before leaving in 14. Also, there are reports of a noticeable / heavy list to port at both boats 12 and 14 according to another enthusiast. I have 6 reports at Boat 14 that state or imply a noticeable / heavy list to port. At Boat 9, no list was reported. This means either, the ship listed heavily to port, 16, 14 and 12 left, then list eased and Boat 9 left. Or, 9 left first, list to port begins, followed by 16, 12 / 14, 14 / 12. 5. The launch time for 10 is up for debate based of observations of the waterline, still being researched. For me, I would say it began lowering, at the earliest, (Based off reports from those that said they were last to leave port side / last big boat from 10 and waterline observations + the order they were given to pull away fast due to the rapid sinking), 2 AM. 6. I agree that the list was above 10 degrees but I think this was before and after Boat C lowered (The davits i recall reading could only lower them with up to 10 degrees list), I think it got to 15 degrees at 2 AM, decreased to 10, at 2:03, Boat C lowers, reaches water at 2:07. List to port worsens to 14 degrees (One witness stated they were pushing A to the falls and sudden list to port, I believe they were witnessing it increasing, then from 2:10, decreasing to 10 degrees by the start of the even keel at 2:16:40. 7. I think the 2:05 launch time is an approximation for Boat D. Woolner stated he got on at 2;15 but his watch was 5 minutes ahead bringing it to 2:10. If we assume he did not get on immediately as it started rowing (As he was one of the 3 to jump / swim to the boat), maybe a minute and also 1 - 2 minutes to lower, gives us a launch time of 2:07 to 2:08. 8. The propellors should be at least partially out of water when plunge begins. Walter Nichols in Boat 15 stated that after they began pulling (I believe they started pulling at 1:45), he noticed the starboard propellor halfway out of the water which others agreed with. Boxhall stated he rowed under the portside propellor but I think he got confused and rowed underneath the starboard side one before pulling astern of the ship. I would put this at about 2:05 AM roughly, give or take abit. 9. What would cause a shower of sparks to erupt from funnel No.2? None of the boilers or imploded, all intact as seen on the wreck. The sparks from the funnel were more likely caused by Guy wires whipping. 10. Witnesses stated the plunge being really quick, A 'Top-Cant'. For it to be considered that, it has to be a sudden angle increase. It likely lasted about 5 - 10 seconds, and was the time frame from the second funnel collapse till break. Some seem to have thought it being due to the false break illusion, as they happened not far apart from eachother (False break illusion being caused by midship set of lights going out making some think it as being an early break). The plunge has been found to been quicker than originally thought, explaining why some thought the forward 2 funnels fell at same time. The forward 2 funnels likely fell at 2:17 (2 witnesses jumped, their watches stopped at 2:17 adjusted time and would have stopped within seconds of hitting the water.). Around 10 seconds apart, same time as false break illusion, then sudden cant very soon after 2nd funnel fell. Then break. Some seem to have also mistook aft lights going out as disappearing - false plunge illusion (The reason I disagree with emergency lights) 11. 37:36. I would suggest that the ship should be a bit more in the water when break happens. The break still happening at the surface, with the stern up in the area, but the break area immersed but coming out of the water during break. This is due to numerous accounts about water over the base of the third funnel when break happened, some even saying water got to 4th funnel. This includes Frank Evans, Edward Buley, George Crowe, Joseph Scarrot, Frank Goldsmith, John Poingdestre, Samuel Rule, Thomas Ranger, George Synoms, William Nutbean, Alfred White and many others. 12. I would recommend having the stern starting to rise a minute post break. This is owing to numerous accounts that stated the stern was horizontal for a minute before starting to rise vertical such as George Synoms, Edward Buley, Frank Evans, Joseph Scarrot, Alfred White and many others. I am not going to mention the starboard list or fourth funnel at all. These are my thoughts on the theory. I think it is a good theory but have a few suggestions for improvement. There are a few things I think should have been mentioned in the video aswell (I may have overlooked this somehow, I apologize if I did) such as Rockets, Boats 9 - 15 being swung out, and positioning of lifeboats. These are my thoughts on the theory. Sorry for any offence, no offence meant. Just wanted to give my reccomendations for improvement on the theory. I do like the theory, I have to admit. Mainly accurate flood times. Great video aswell btw, keep up the great work :) What are your thoughts on this?
i never said that the boilers exploded i know sparks came from the second funnel the shower of sparks if i remember correctly was from jack thayer's account
@ Ah ok. Thanks for response. I just wanted to make sure you knew that the sparks were not due to the second funnel. The account of sparks from 2nd funnel was from Thayer's 1940 account. Thanks for clarifying about the propellors. Thanks :) What were your thoughts on the other suggestions out of interest?
Please join my discord server discord.gg/4ncbzN6wUu
Hello. Watched the theory video and theory does look quite good in my opinion. There are a few notes I would like to make though:
1. 3:45. Witnesses did indeed state that slow ahead was ordered. However, it seems from a few accounts that slow astern was ordered very briefly to slow the ship's forward momentum before slow ahead then final stop.
2. The starboard list would have to be atleast 2.5 degrees for a boat on the port side to come against the side on the way down. Boat 6 rubbed the side on the way down according to the quartermaster of the boat. Boat 6 was the only one at the port side to have such problems though. Those in Boat 8 mentioned having no issue keeping off the side on the way down.
3. It's more likely that 6 left before 8. Fredrick Fleet in the inquires stated they left first. Others seemed to imply or state 6 left before 8. Fredrick Fleet stated they go into the water at 1 AM. In Boat 8, Alfred Crawford and Margaret Swift stated they left the ship after 1 AM. Alfred Crawford stated collision was at 11;45 and Fredrick Fleet and the other lookouts were definetly using corrected time (Since there was a time change that night). When timings adjusted, this would put 6 before 8 as agreed with the more reliable evidence. Alfred Crawford also stated they had no issue keeping off the side on the way down but Hitchens in 6 reported they had to push away from the side at points. 6 probably left at 12:52 and 8 at 1:05 to account for these testimonies.
4. The order that Boats 12, 14 and 16 left in is open to debate, alot of contradictory testimony as to whether 12 or 14 left first amongst those 2. However, Frank Morris in 14 stated he lowered 12 before leaving in 14. Also, there are reports of a noticeable / heavy list to port at both boats 12 and 14 according to another enthusiast. I have 6 reports at Boat 14 that state or imply a noticeable / heavy list to port. At Boat 9, no list was reported. This means either, the ship listed heavily to port, 16, 14 and 12 left, then list eased and Boat 9 left.
Or, 9 left first, list to port begins, followed by 16, 12 / 14, 14 / 12.
5. The launch time for 10 is up for debate based of observations of the waterline, still being researched. For me, I would say it began lowering, at the earliest, (Based off reports from those that said they were last to leave port side / last big boat from 10 and waterline observations + the order they were given to pull away fast due to the rapid sinking), 2 AM.
6. I agree that the list was above 10 degrees but I think this was before and after Boat C lowered (The davits i recall reading could only lower them with up to 10 degrees list), I think it got to 15 degrees at 2 AM, decreased to 10, at 2:03, Boat C lowers, reaches water at 2:07. List to port worsens to 14 degrees (One witness stated they were pushing A to the falls and sudden list to port, I believe they were witnessing it increasing, then from 2:10, decreasing to 10 degrees by the start of the even keel at 2:16:40.
7. I think the 2:05 launch time is an approximation for Boat D. Woolner stated he got on at 2;15 but his watch was 5 minutes ahead bringing it to 2:10. If we assume he did not get on immediately as it started rowing (As he was one of the 3 to jump / swim to the boat), maybe a minute and also 1 - 2 minutes to lower, gives us a launch time of 2:07 to 2:08.
8. The propellors should be at least partially out of water when plunge begins. Walter Nichols in Boat 15 stated that after they began pulling (I believe they started pulling at 1:45), he noticed the starboard propellor halfway out of the water which others agreed with. Boxhall stated he rowed under the portside propellor but I think he got confused and rowed underneath the starboard side one before pulling astern of the ship. I would put this at about 2:05 AM roughly, give or take abit.
9. What would cause a shower of sparks to erupt from funnel No.2? None of the boilers or imploded, all intact as seen on the wreck. The sparks from the funnel were more likely caused by Guy wires whipping.
10. Witnesses stated the plunge being really quick, A 'Top-Cant'. For it to be considered that, it has to be a sudden angle increase. It likely lasted about 5 - 10 seconds, and was the time frame from the second funnel collapse till break. Some seem to have thought it being due to the false break illusion, as they happened not far apart from eachother (False break illusion being caused by midship set of lights going out making some think it as being an early break). The plunge has been found to been quicker than originally thought, explaining why some thought the forward 2 funnels fell at same time. The forward 2 funnels likely fell at 2:17 (2 witnesses jumped, their watches stopped at 2:17 adjusted time and would have stopped within seconds of hitting the water.). Around 10 seconds apart, same time as false break illusion, then sudden cant very soon after 2nd funnel fell. Then break.
Some seem to have also mistook aft lights going out as disappearing - false plunge illusion (The reason I disagree with emergency lights)
11. 37:36. I would suggest that the ship should be a bit more in the water when break happens. The break still happening at the surface, with the stern up in the area, but the break area immersed but coming out of the water during break. This is due to numerous accounts about water over the base of the third funnel when break happened, some even saying water got to 4th funnel. This includes Frank Evans, Edward Buley, George Crowe, Joseph Scarrot, Frank Goldsmith, John Poingdestre, Samuel Rule, Thomas Ranger, George Synoms, William Nutbean, Alfred White and many others.
12. I would recommend having the stern starting to rise a minute post break. This is owing to numerous accounts that stated the stern was horizontal for a minute before starting to rise vertical such as George Synoms, Edward Buley, Frank Evans, Joseph Scarrot, Alfred White and many others.
I am not going to mention the starboard list or fourth funnel at all. These are my thoughts on the theory. I think it is a good theory but have a few suggestions for improvement.
There are a few things I think should have been mentioned in the video aswell (I may have overlooked this somehow, I apologize if I did) such as Rockets, Boats 9 - 15 being swung out, and positioning of lifeboats.
These are my thoughts on the theory. Sorry for any offence, no offence meant. Just wanted to give my reccomendations for improvement on the theory. I do like the theory, I have to admit. Mainly accurate flood times.
Great video aswell btw, keep up the great work :)
What are your thoughts on this?
Also happy to provide accounts if you would like any accounts. Thanks :)
in response to the 8th thing you have pointed out that was a mistake on james's end titanic was not meant to be that low in the water
i never said that the boilers exploded i know sparks came from the second funnel the shower of sparks if i remember correctly was from jack thayer's account
thank you for the suggestions no offence taken yes there are a few mistakes some were due to limitations due to it not being an animation
@ Ah ok. Thanks for response. I just wanted to make sure you knew that the sparks were not due to the second funnel. The account of sparks from 2nd funnel was from Thayer's 1940 account.
Thanks for clarifying about the propellors.
Thanks :)
What were your thoughts on the other suggestions out of interest?