The simulation shows the sinking as using the scenario derived by Parks Stephenson. To my reader's knowledge to assist further. No doubt some will fail, and some will require more evidence at which point I appeal Where theories emerge, I willĮxamine their veracity. Pertinent stories will have been omitted. For this reason, I have limited myself to accounts that are readily available via books and internet resources. With over 700 survivors, one could spendĪ huge amount of time collating and scrutinising all the accounts. This current works attempts to reconcile the viewpoints of the witnesses. Boats situated at all varieties of angles and distances describe Stern-on of the Titanic would see the rear go up to 90 degrees. Under the imagery described in the article, only those lifeboats situated stem-on, or
By factoring in the minority into the equations, we come up with a model that But, as we shall see, most witnesses say 90 degrees and onlyĪ few say 45 degrees. This is slightly remiss as it dismisses those eyewitnesses who saw the poop going up perpendicular, and can'tīe explained by saying that it would depend on where the witnesses were placed some people would see the stern The accepted norm of the sinking by not showing the stern going up to 90 degrees just before "the final plunge." One extremely commendable attempt to describe the dynamics of the sinking can be found on Parks Stephenson's website. Protecting the engineering of a ship to further protect its engineers from further investigation. And there is the politics of adjusted evidence: Psychology: wishful thinking, and the like. Perhaps one should introduce another factor into the scene of phantasmagoria as the Without seeing subtle finer deck structures. But just enough time to discern gross shapes Hardly enough time for one's eyes to adjust to the darkness. Between the time the Titanic's lights went out and the time that she sank only a few minutes elapsed. The same lifeboat saw different things, and while differences in the acuity of eyesight may place a part, this can't be the whole story. Suggestions have ranged from tricks on perception played by differences in perspective or light (or lack of).Īs we shall we see, this can't be the whole story as very often, survivors who viewed the scene from The opinions of the minority (principally, the ship's officers)? Why had so many people seen different things? How could the majority of people who had seen the ship disintegrate before their very eyes be overruled by They had essentially been ignored.Ī rapid flurry of historical re-writing ensued. Had stated their convictions that the ship split apart on the surface.
Was amended when it became common knowledge that dozens of people in the inquiries, and in interviews Where and when had it happened? Initial arguments in 19 blamed "water pressure" at a depth of 1000 feet, but this Then, on September 1st, 1985, the cosiness vanished. seemed heresey to question this, and only Walter Lord challenged the status quo in unwritten Inquiries.Beesley repeated this story.as did Gracie.so did "A Night To Remember".so did all the movies The ship was described as having left the surface intact in the findings of the 1912 Since the wreck was found, the biggest source of revisionist history has been the condition of the wreckĪt 2.20am on April 15th.