. . . well, the official party line was that the mighty liner sank whole . . . both top investigations proceeded along those lines . . . both are in error, and their findings must therefore be vacated . . . a new investigation would have to focus on an entirely new set of circumstances . . . how 'bout this---even with four compartments full, could the vessel suffer structural failure? First-class passenger Chambers mentions a persistent list to port during Sunday---was there already something wrong with the new ship? All of this should've been looked into back in '12 . . . of course there was no panic aboard Titanic, and emergency cutter no. 1 goes off with 12 people . . . but then, nobody thought of structural failure . . . all of us grew up elieveing the ship sank intact---drawings in papers, on book covers, movies, etc.---alas, an entire new set of circumstances must be put into play . . . Mrs. Strauss? Why get into a lifeboat when the ship was perfectly safe? The entire event must be gone over . . . Ballard? He's the guy who nullified the 1912 findings---decades after the event!
Michael H Standart wrote:>>Why would Jack Thayer ever lie about how Titanic sank in a drawing? Jack would have seen how the Titanic sunk,so why wouldet he draw the way how She sank?<<
Who said that he lied? He may have been mistaken in a number of details, but they would have been honest mistakes. He wouldn't have been the only one to make any either. Lightoller was convinced that the ship sank intact. He didn't lie, he was simply mistaken.
In any event, the drawings attributed to Jack Theyer were not made by him at all. They were penciled by a chap named Skidmore and they represent his perspective on what he claimed Jack told him.
Trevor Rommelley wrote:Also, read this:
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest