Jack Thayer's drawing of sinking---confirmed?

[Thomas Golembiewski]

Jack Thayer's version of the sinking, done as a drawing by L. P. Skidmore of Brooklyn, aboard the Carpathia on Monday, April 15, 1912, has caused a lot of controversy. This drawing is widely known so I will not go into any details about it here. The drawing appeared in the Chicago Daily News, Monday, April 22, 1912, p. l, c. 6. It was, no doubt, widely produced in other journals . . . I would now like to draw attention to the fourth sketch---the one that reads: 1:50 am---Forward End Floats, Then Sinks; the fifth sketch reads: 2:00 am---Stern Section Pivots Amidships and Swings Over Spot Where Forward Section Sank. Many don't believe that the bow rose, or peeked up above the waves.

However, the following may confirm the teenaged Thayer's version. Mrs. Louis A. Hippach (the former Ida Fischer)---the only woman surviving first class passenger aboard the doomed liner Titanic who was a resident of Chicago---at least at the time of the sinking---gave an account of her travail to the city's leading paper. This is extracted from a longer news item:

Chicago Tribune, Monday, April 22, 1912, p. 2, c. 1:

“Then we started to row. I knew the ship was sinking fast, because I saw the port holes were near the water. We heard some one cry in an appealing voice to us to come back and get more passengers, but we did not dare to. When we had rowed about 150 yards away from the Titanic we heard a fearful explosion. I saw the ship split open. At the same time the ship’s bow rose up in the air as the steamer sank towards the center."
__________________________

Wouldn't this description tend to confirm young Thayer's account?

Mrs. Hippach survived the sinking as a passenger of the famed "perfumed" Port Lifeboat No. 4 (which, as we know, was conviniently hidden out of sight through most of the night, as it was lowered one deck below---clearly the getaway craft for the creme de la creme---if such an occasion warranted---which later it did). She was returning to Chicago from a trip to Germany, and was accompanied by her only daughter, Jean (who, of course, also survived).

[Trevor Rommelley]

Also, read this:

(Link Broken)

[Thomas Golembiewski]

Hmmm . . . most intriguing . . . and she was also in the "perfumed" lifeboat . . .

[Parks Stephenson]

Every flooding survey, beginning with Hackett Bedford, points to a loss of bouyancy that would make such a rise in the bow a physical impossibility. Forensic evidence from inside the wreck supports the assumptions made in the flooding surveys.

Parks

[Thomas Golembiewski]

Learned minds back in 1912 told everybody the ship sank intact!

Nautical geniuses insisted, based on forensic science, that the ship could only sink whole . . . two august governemental bodies, filled with wise men and mountains of expert testimony, concluded it sank in one piece . . .

How many more accounts must be dug-up? Thayer's depiction . . . Mrs. Hippach's account . . . the girl from Finland . . . on and on . . . we have a body of testimony that any commission, or court, would have to recognize . . .

This "early" or "shallow" break theory that's been bandied about the past few years---could that possibly explain some of this---the fact that the bow was not that low in the water, close to the surface, and the weight of the stern, momentarily, pushed the bow up?

[Parks Stephenson]

I'm going to be staking my professional reputation and a production company's budget on my assertion that the bow section had lost so much buoyancy by the time of the break that it was physically impossible for it to resurface.

Don't take what I say at face value now...when the time comes, I'll present what I hope will be compelling information to support my assertion.

Parks

[Thomas Golembiewski]

Parks---

surprisingly, I am with you . . . but we cannot keep ignoring these accounts that keep showing up . . . I'm no leading authority on these matters . . . your word weighs far heavier . . . however, the "low" angle break could possibly explain some of this. Most people think of the sinking as from 1912-1985 (as all those books during this period depict it); all of our minds had to be readjusted by the discoveries of the Ballard findings . . . however, most pople are still thinking of the sinking in pre-1985 terms! The low-angle break is, I believe, thinking in post-l985 terms, as a way of explaining a variety of things and happenings---that night nobody thought the ship would break in two . . . that was the stunner . . . that bow could very well have been high up, not so low down---at least it would be some sort of explanation . . . unless there is something else going on?

[Parks Stephenson]

I guess all depends on which accounts you focus. I have collected as many eyewitness accounts as I can find that speak to the internal flooding. When their observations are plugged into a POSSE analysis model of the ship, the computer yields a progressive flooding curve that gives us the calculated loss of buoyancy in the bow section, as well as the information we need to calculate the new waterline and trim angle as the ship settles, up until the time that longitudinal stability was lost, at which point the POSSE model becomes unreliable. A MAESTRO model is being considered to take the work forward, but the initial analysis did conclusively show that the steady progressive flooding in the bow did make much of the bow section non-buoyant. Physics takes over from there...the force needed to lift that non-buoyant mass would have greatly exceeded the yield strength of the steel, meaning that the hull structure would fail long before it could lift the bow.

That's my conclusion in a nutshell...my work in this area is continuing and the data to support my contention is at this time too immature to discuss. You'll see it someday before 2012, though.

Parks

[Thomas Golembiewski]

Parks---

such fascinating work you're doing . . . so sad we must wait so long . . . I think one problem most of us are having is that we've all been weaned on the 1912 version of the sinking and the events surrounding thus---that the ship sank intact---as such the stunner being that such a vessel could sink (both inquiries agreed the ship went down whole---and all movies, books, art work, book covers, as such, followed that line). Post-1985---the stunner was no longer the sinking---but that the ship broke in two! The entire dynamic had to change----yet, many, if not most, kept clinging to the old version, the more comfortable one, the one we all grew up with. The obvious answer as to why the lifeboats weren't filled properly is that nobody thought the mighty vessel would founder . . . why was Guggenheim in evening dress, why were a group of first class males playing cards at a time like this, why was Mrs. Allison smiling away?---the reason is simple: they didn't think the ship would break in two---that's why---that's what threw everybody . . . a re-adjustment to events is in order . . . I believe this "low," or "shallow" angle theory might best explain what really happened that night---the old version has been long obsolete (at least from 1985 on). There was no urgency aboard the Titanic that night!
____________________

Okay, this is for everybody's reference, Mrs. Hippach's full account in the Tribune:

Chicago Tribune, Monday, April 22, 1912, p. 2, c. 1:

CHICAGOANS TELL OF WRECK

The first Chicago survivors of the Titanic arrived in Chicago yesterday morning, apparently well, but with nerves unstrung by the horrors of the disaster. Mrs. L. A. Hippach of 7360 Sheridan road and her daughter, Miss Jean Hippach, arrived on the Twentieth Century limited, accompanied by Mr. Hippach. The two women told graphic stories of the disaster. They declared that White Star officials in London and Cherbourg made false representations to induce tourists to take passage on the Titanic on her initial journey. That the lookout in the crow’s nest sighted an iceberg more than an hour before the Titanic struck, that the captain was under orders to make a record breaking voyage across the Atlantic, and, therefore, disregarded the ominous proximity of icebergs, and, finally that poor judgment was used in manning the few lifeboats with oarsmen.

Both women left the Titanic in the last lifeboat. It had only moved some 150 yards from the steamer when the boilers exploded. They saw the ship split open, and say that the stern reared in the air just before sinking.
_________________

“We expected to be sucked into the ocean in the wake of the Titanic and I closed my eyes,” said Mrs. Hippach. “I waited and waited. Finally I opened my eyes and the Titanic was gone. The boat listed so to one side that I felt sure we would be swamped.”
_________________________

“Then we started to row. I knew the ship was sinking fast, because I saw the port holes were near the water. We heard some one cry in an appealing voice to us to come back and get more passengers, but we did not dare to. When we had rowed about 150 yards away from the Titanic we heard a fearful explosion. I saw the ship split open. At the same time the ship’s bow rose up in the air as the steamer sank towards the center.
__________________________

[Joshua Noble]

The bow could have been filled with air and that could have been enough to sink the ship. One theory suggests that it was really the Grand Staircase. It could even be, that there was air still in places of the Grand Staircase, causing the bow to rise and then releasing the Grand Staircase through the dome. It's a wild guess, but there's no telling what they really saw. It might even be the Aft Grand Staircase, still a little bit intact and then breaking up.

[Thomas Golembiewski]

Joshua---

yes . . . maybe . . . the problem really is that both the US and British inquiries are fallacious---there both based on the assumption the ship sank----as we of course know that didn't happen . . . the problem was structural failure---and that was not investigated . . . it's a whole different dynamic . . . and what did Bell tell Capt. Smith? That the ship could be stabilized by the pumping system? Remember----nobody knew that structural failure was going to happen---that's why there was no urgency aboard the Titanic that night . . . nobody was in fear . . . whoever dreamt up that "low", or "shallow," break theory should be given a prize . . . that has to be the answer . . .

[Robert Gibbons]

When Bob Ballard found the Titanic in 1985, I sent him a copy of the Jack Thayer drawing. He replied that the drawing is the "Rosetta stone" of the sinking of the Titanic. It explains why the bow and stern are pointing in opposite directions and why they are separated by the distance they are. Note the times on the "panels" of the drawing. The bow sinks first. The stern stays afloat and then rotates and then sinks. Accounting for a one-knot current that night, the stern sinks about a quarter of a mile from the bow. The Life magazine for May 18, 1953 covering the first showing of Fox's "Titanic'" publishes both the Thayer drawing and a stil of the model sinking from the film. Young Jack told us all along the ship broke up when it sank but we didn't believe him! Robert H. Gibbons

[Thomas Golembiewski]

. . . 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!

[Joshua Noble]

. . . 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!

That's interesting about the account made by Chambers. It makes me wonder if there was any damage to Bilge Keel or if there was too much weight on the Port side and not enough on the Starboard to balance her out.

[Thomas Golembiewski]

yes, that whole element of the bilge is interesting . . .

Okay, so back in th '60s Ralph Nader gained fame from his best-selling book, Unsafe at Any Speed . . .

Okay, so now Joshua, you decide to do a book, you want your opinion read---and so you go and title your book, Titanic: Unsafe No Matter What It Hit . . . .

Would you be far from the truth? There may have been a lot going on with that ship that we know little, if anything, about . . . state-of-the-art shipbuilding---far from it . . . Did Bell tell Capt. Smith the ship could possibly hold until help came in the guise of the next White Star liner coming across (I believe it was the Cedric---I think?) . . . we can never truly know . . . both men went down with the ship . . .

Again, back in 1912, if properly investigated, these commissions were suppose to go over all that stuff, the staffs were suppose to have done all that back then . . . today, the debate goes on . . . .

[Joshua Noble]

I haven't even heard of Titanic: Unsafe At any Speed. It's nice to know not to read it though. I've made several mistakes in reading books that were very far from the truth, and believing them until I investigate the events as told by survivors and historians. Some are easily identifiable as falsehood however, like the kennels being deep in the bowels of the bow or 3rd class children exploring 1st class during the voyage. Some books I just couldn't stand, like Raise the Titanic. The story of Bell and Smith, I can't tell whether it's truth or not until there's something solid like being told the same story by more than one of the survivors that the story is true.

[Aly Jones]

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?
Come on,I actually do think that Jack did he's best in describing the sinking with the artist,it may not be 100% correct but it must have some meaning to it,besides it's the only discription of how the Titanic sunk.
An Oil Tanker (SPLIT IN HALF,year 2000) sank With her stern risen high up in the air,same as the Titanic,so this as some aspects as the Jack thayer's drawing?

[Michael H Standart]

>>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.

[Aly Jones]

>>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.

I must have read it wrong!
That's what i meant and stated in my earlier post.

[Trevor Rommelley]

Also, read this:

Link Broken

I was doing some work on a finite elemtn analysis model of the Titanic using data from Tim Foecke's book, and planned to use the sketch in the link to visualise the break-up but the link is not working anymore. Is there a link on google images showing Lilli Silven's sketch of the amidships disintegration?

Thanks

Trevor