• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

RMS Titanic: Theories, Exploration & Madness!

Many many thanks, I will try that tomorrow. With some pretty incriminating screengrabs, I don't see how they can remain silent. They already have police action and a few lawsuits to contend with for doing nothing ;)
 
RhinoHorn said:
Thank you Spudrick68. Its been so long since I was last on here that many people's names are completely new to me!

As for that telegraph article, they have censored and removed mine and others posts which were aghast at the Facebook injustice. Freedom of the press? Maybe. Freedom of the public? Sadly not.
Click to expand...

I also post from time to time on DT, and they have taken to removing comments which may be contrary to their expressed views, but which are in no way abusive or libellous, and doing so without any explanation. It's a very worrying development. It seems particularly to focus on replies that do not just disagree but point out where they are factually incorrect.

Yes, it is obviously their site and they can do what they like, but to invite comments and then remove those with which they disagree or which point out inaccuracies seems highly irresponsible. And, inevitably, will only drive people away.
 
Cochise said:
I also post from time to time on DT, and they have taken to removing comments which may be contrary to their expressed views, but which are in no way abusive or libellous, and doing so without any explanation. It's a very worrying development. It seems particularly to focus on replies that do not just disagree but point out where they are factually incorrect.

Yes, it is obviously their site and they can do what they like, but to invite comments and then remove those with which they disagree or which point out inaccuracies seems highly irresponsible. And, inevitably, will only drive people away.
Click to expand...
Northcliffe do this too, especially with their local titles (and they own most of the big ones.) They also have fairly obvious (to the experienced eye, at least) sock puppets, with whom you argue at your peril. My local one, the risible Bristol Post, has two or three "untouchables", all of whom have similarly inconsistent voices in a similarly inconsistent manner, who parrot the editorial line and have apparent licence to flame and generally patronise anyone they choose. There are large swathes of apparent one-way conversations, with large, reasonable-post-shaped holes in the comment threads and lots of posturing comments from the untouchables.

I sometimes post to the Bristol one, and I've lost count how many well-reasoned and courteous posts I've had vanish, without as you say explanation, merely because they go against the editorial line. Oh, and they gerrymander the "karma" red and green arrows no end. I've seen posts gather twelve or fifteen thumbs-down red arrows in a matter of five minutes at a time when traffic must have been at its lowest..needless to say any posts remarking on this vanish almost instantly. I rarely bother these days :).
 
stuneville said:
Cochise said:
I also post from time to time on DT, and they have taken to removing comments which may be contrary to their expressed views, but which are in no way abusive or libellous, and doing so without any explanation. It's a very worrying development. It seems particularly to focus on replies that do not just disagree but point out where they are factually incorrect.

Yes, it is obviously their site and they can do what they like, but to invite comments and then remove those with which they disagree or which point out inaccuracies seems highly irresponsible. And, inevitably, will only drive people away.
Click to expand...
Northcliffe do this too, especially with their local titles (and they own most of the big ones.) They also have fairly obvious (to the experienced eye, at least) sock puppets, with whom you argue at your peril. My local one, the risible Bristol Post, has two or three "untouchables", all of whom have similarly inconsistent voices in a similarly inconsistent manner, who parrot the editorial line and have apparent licence to flame and generally patronise anyone they choose. There are large swathes of apparent one-way conversations, with large, reasonable-post-shaped holes in the comment threads and lots of posturing comments from the untouchables.

I sometimes post to the Bristol one, and I've lost count how many well-reasoned and courteous posts I've had vanish, without as you say explanation, merely because they go against the editorial line. Oh, and they gerrymander the "karma" red and green arrows no end. I've seen posts gather twelve or fifteen thumbs-down red arrows in a matter of five minutes at a time when traffic must have been at its lowest..needless to say any posts remarking on this vanish almost instantly. I rarely bother these days :).
Click to expand...

The BBC News website also does exactly this in its 'Have Your Say' section. I gave up posting to it eventually.
 
Its all too much for my friend. The police have said that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if you don't like what the guy is saying, then don't read it, and that it doesn't contravene any laws. Facebook won't take it seriously, he/we can't get in touch with them, and the guy in Californian continues his homophobic/paedophile rants. My friend is going to leave Facebook and I am seriously concerned as to his mental and physical health. Great isn't it, when the law favours the bad guy :x :evil:
 
Its not as simple as that. The other person is now stalking my friend, posting acerbic comments on his YouTube channel. Maybe my friend should just block him, but it won't stop the vitriol being spouted. If you were being accused of being a paedophile, a thief and so on, wouldn't you want to do something about it? Just think about how many people, including potential employers, could read that.
 
The trick is to not use Facebook. A long post my friend made on his own group defending himself and providing evidence of his statements was censored and deleted by Facebook itself. While those who continue to defame his name are allowed to post scott-free.
 
Titanic iceberg simulator in Chinese theme park 'in bad taste'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25745263

Bernard Hill, who was in the 1997 Titanic movie, with some of the backers of the project

Bernard Hill, who was in the 1997 Titanic movie, attended the project's launch

Plans to build a full-scale Titanic replica with an iceberg simulation in a Chinese theme park are in bad taste, a Northern Ireland politician has said.

The attraction in Sichuan province, about 930 miles from the sea, will let hundreds of people at a time experience the shipwreck.

The Titanic was built in east Belfast.

Former Lord Mayor of Belfast Jim Rodgers said he had asked the Chinese firm behind the 1bn yuan (£100.7m) project to reconsider their plans.

'Disgraceful'
He said that while it was a "great idea" to build the Titanic replica at the Romandisea Seven Star International Cultural Tourism Resort, "to have a simulation of an iceberg collision is going a step too far".

Titanic Belfast
Belfast has commemorated the Titanic with a visitors centre beside the Harland and Wolff shipyard
Mr Rodgers said his grandfather had worked on building the Titanic at the Harland and Wolff shipyard, and he felt the iceberg simulator would offend "many of those who lost loved ones" when the ship sank on its maiden voyage in April 1912.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

They will think, 'The water will drown me, I must escape with my life'”

Su Shaojun
Seven Star Energy Investment Group
"I don't think it should be done in this fashion," he said.

"The ship was perfect when it left these shores in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and unfortunately it struck an iceberg, but for people to try and make money out of that is disgraceful and shameful."

The vessel, the largest luxury ship in its time, struck an iceberg on its maiden voyage from Southampton to New York. It went down on 15 April 1912, leaving more than 1,500 people dead.

Su Shaojun, chief executive of the Seven Star Energy Investment Group that funded the project, said "the universal love and sense of responsibility shown during the Titanic shipwreck represent the spiritual richness of human civilisation".

"When the ship hits the iceberg, it will shake, it will tumble," he said.

'Sensitive'
"We will let people experience water coming in by using sound and light effects ... They will think, 'The water will drown me, I must escape with my life'."

The actor Bernard Hill, who played Captain Edward Smith in the 1997 movie Titanic, attended the launch of the project in Hong Kong and rejected suggestions that it was inappropriate.

"It's been approached in a very delicate and a very sensitive way and they're very aware of the extent of the disaster in 1912," he said.

"I don't think it will belittle that disaster."

Work is also under way in China on a sea-worthy Titanic replica, commissioned by Australian mining magnate Clive Palmer. It is expected to be ready to set sail in 2016.
Click to expand...
 
Was fire the real cause of Titanic's sinking?
Source: Xinhua 2017-01-02 17:55:37

LONDON, Jan. 2 (Xinhua) -- The real cause of the sinking of Titanic was not a collision with a giant iceberg, as commonly believed, but a fire that had weakened the liner's hull, a new documentary has claimed.

In "Titanic: the New Evidence", journalist Senan Molony, who has been researching the disaster for 30 years, held that a fire caused serious damage to Titanic's hull, which happened to be in the same area where the iceberg hit.

He believed that the fire had been raging in a coalbunker since the liner left the shipyard in Belfast, but wasn't noticed.

When the iceberg hit, the hull had been weakened by the blaze so much that a minor knock became an unimaginable disaster, said Molony.

The documentary, aired during the New Year on British television, presents pictures revealing dark marks on the starboard side of the ship as proof of a fire.

Titanic left Southampton, Britain, on April 10, 1912 to start her maiden voyage. It sank four days later after hitting an iceberg in the Atlantic, causing the loss of more than 1,500 lives.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-01/02/c_135949737.htm
 
ramonmercado said:
Was fire the real cause of Titanic's sinking?
Source: Xinhua 2017-01-02 17:55:37

LONDON, Jan. 2 (Xinhua) -- The real cause of the sinking of Titanic was not a collision with a giant iceberg, as commonly believed, but a fire that had weakened the liner's hull, a new documentary has claimed.

In "Titanic: the New Evidence", journalist Senan Molony, who has been researching the disaster for 30 years, held that a fire caused serious damage to Titanic's hull, which happened to be in the same area where the iceberg hit.

He believed that the fire had been raging in a coalbunker since the liner left the shipyard in Belfast, but wasn't noticed.

When the iceberg hit, the hull had been weakened by the blaze so much that a minor knock became an unimaginable disaster, said Molony.

The documentary, aired during the New Year on British television, presents pictures revealing dark marks on the starboard side of the ship as proof of a fire.

Titanic left Southampton, Britain, on April 10, 1912 to start her maiden voyage. It sank four days later after hitting an iceberg in the Atlantic, causing the loss of more than 1,500 lives.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-01/02/c_135949737.htm
Click to expand...
I watched that, it was OK.

Prima facie, the program presented evidence that the ship had a serious coal-bunker fire for the voyage and that this weakened one of ship's water-tight bulkheads structurally, leading to it sinking hours before it might otherwise have done.

There was also evidence that inferior grade steel had been used in the build to save money, which contributed to the above and also to greater damage inflicted on the collision. It was also suggested that the ship was steaming at full speed as it had barely enough coal left for the journey, due to the fire's depletion of, so couldn't afford coal to slow down for safety and then resume full speed.

For me, the programme made its case.

The "Still photograph to colour film' technique was really fascinating and good to watch as well.
 
^ ditto.

I watched the first half of the programme (2nd half coincided with Sherlock!), and it seemed a lot more convincing than many shows of this type. The colour animations were ingenious, even if they didn't add much to the argument.

The main thrust of the argument, that a fire had been raging on Titanic, possibly for weeks before the sinking, was well made.
 
Coal said:
Prima facie, the program presented evidence that the ship had a serious coal-bunker fire for the voyage and that this weakened one of ship's water-tight bulkheads structurally, leading to it sinking hours before it might otherwise have done.
...
It was also suggested that the ship was steaming at full speed as it had barely enough coal left for the journey, due to the fire's depletion of, so couldn't afford coal to slow down for safety and then resume full speed.
Click to expand...
There's an old joke where a motorist is pulled up for speeding, and he gave the excuse that he was low on fuel and was hurrying to get home before he had an accident. :rolleyes:

Normally, good seamanship concentrates on safety first, so the sensible thing to do would have been to slow down and call for help. (After all, Titanic did have the new-fangled radio aboard.) But maybe this was beyond the parameters of the Maiden Voyage of an 'Unsinkable' ship....

This to me suggests that either the navigating officers were unaware of this coal fire, or deliberately chose to ignore it because of the damage it would cause for the company's reputation - being towed to harbour by tugs would not have looked good.
 
The fire in coal bunker #6 is not a revelation - it's been known and discussed for a long time. Here are links to two earlier news stories (2004 and 2008) that also suggested the fire contributed to the sinking (or at least the rate of sinking):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...aging-below-decks-says-new-theory-808472.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108020906.htm

As far as I can tell, the most novel aspect of this latest story / theory concerns blaming the effects of the fire for hastening the sinking after the iceberg impact.
 
It doesn't look like I'm going to be seeing this documentary. If you have, could someone please say if the comments by a crewman called "Dilley" were used in the show?
 
DrPaulLee said:
It doesn't look like I'm going to be seeing this documentary. If you have, could someone please say if the comments by a crewman called "Dilley" were used in the show?
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember the name being mentioned. Was he the one interviewed in the US?
 
Last edited:
Latest expedition shows that the Titanic is decaying rapidly
Titanic sub dive reveals parts are being lost to sea
By Rebecca MorelleScience correspondent, BBC News
  • 53 minutes ago


Media captionThe wreck sits 3.8km (2.4 miles) down at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean
The first people to dive down to the Titanic in nearly 15 years say some of the wreck is deteriorating rapidly.
Over the course of five submersible dives, an international team of deep-sea explorers surveyed the sunken ship, which lies 3,800m down in the Atlantic.
While parts of the wreck were in surprisingly good condition, other features had been lost to the sea.
The worst decay was seen on the starboard side of the officers' quarters.
Titanic historian Parks Stephenson said some of what he saw during the dive was "shocking".
"The captain's bathtub is a favourite image among Titanic enthusiasts - and that's now gone," he said.
"That whole deck house on that side is collapsing, taking with it the state rooms. And that deterioration is going to continue advancing."
He said the sloping lounge roof of the bow section would probably be the next part to be lost, obscuring views of the ship's interior.
"Titanic is returning to nature," he added.
etc
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49420935
 
It's annoying that all the news outlets say the photos show the rapid deterioration when they show nothing of the kind. The pictures don't look any different to the last ones from 2010.
 
DrPaulLee said:
It's annoying that all the news outlets say the photos show the rapid deterioration when they show nothing of the kind. The pictures don't look any different to the last ones from 2010.
Click to expand...
No further deterioration?.. there's no Toblerone left at all in the gift shop now DrPaulLee.
 
Last edited:
What I said was the RELEASED images don't show any further deterioration. Why don't people read what I said?
 
DrPaulLee said:
It's annoying that all the news outlets say the photos show the rapid deterioration when they show nothing of the kind. The pictures don't look any different to the last ones from 2010.
Click to expand...
Hype to just get a story?
 
You're right there. It would have been so easy to show a picture or video of the affected areas. I guess they're being saved for the forthcoming documentary, but that's always the same. Titaniacs get into a frenzied froth by any stray scraps that are condescendingly tossed at us by the glitterati.
 
Construction details from rare Titanic and Olympic books ..

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top