Titanic disaster blamed on Moon


B00Mer
#1
Titanic disaster blamed on Moon

For 100 years it has shouldered the blame for the sinking of the Titanic but now the much-maligned iceberg could be partially forgiven after scientists identified a new culprit – the moon.




Although a collision with a vast tower of ice ultimately brought the passenger liner to its sticky end, it was a freak lunar event three months earlier that put the obstacle in its path, a new study claims.

An incredibly rare combination of astronomical factors including the closest approach of the moon to Earth in 1,400 years caused an unusually high tide in January 1912, researchers found.

This once-in-a-lifetime swell would have swept a vast field of icebergs from their normal resting place off the coast of Canada and caused them to drift further south.

It would have taken them almost exactly three months to reach the shipping lanes where the Titanic sank on April 14 at a cost of 1,500 lives, the scientists reported in Sky & Telescope magazine.

Prof Donald Olson of Texas State University, who led the study, said: “They went full speed into a region with icebergs, that’s really what sank the ship, but the lunar connection may explain how an unusually large number of icebergs got into the path of the Titanic.”
 
taxslave
+3
#2  Top Rated Post
Yep blame it on anything except what really caused the sinking. That being a captan and crew with a bloated sense of self importance.
 
damngrumpy
+3
#3
The ship was unsinkable didn't you know that? Unfortunately a lot of lives were lost
because some ships in the area did not respond to the distress calls, others came as
quickly as possible but it was too late. The moon might have played a roll but the
fact remains, the crew did not take the situation seriously because the ship was
supposedly unsinkable. Come to think of it the Bismark was supposed to be unsinkable
and we know how that turned out.
 
JLM
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Titanic disaster blamed on Moon

For 100 years it has shouldered the blame for the sinking of the Titanic but now the much-maligned iceberg could be partially forgiven after scientists identified a new culprit the moon.



A bit of a stretch methinks.
 
Vanni Fucci
+2
#5
There is no moon...
 
WLDB
+1
#6
Amusing. There are so many crazy theories out there about this. The only moon theory that makes sense to me is that if the moon had been out that night the ice berg would have been seen sooner. It wasn't.

Given people's arrogance and faith in technology it was only a matter of time before something like the Titanic happened.
 
L Gilbert
#7
Funny, I saw a article where Moby Dick sank it.
 
Bar Sinister
+1
#8
That theory is equivalent to blaming Italy for being in the way of the Costa Concordia.
 
Blackleaf
#9
I'd say it was an iceberg which caused it.
 
spaminator
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

I'd say it was an iceberg which caused it.

did the iceberg survive the collision?
 
SLM
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Funny, I saw a article where Moby Dick sank it.

Interesting theory, lol.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

I'd say it was an iceberg which caused it.

It wasn't so much the iceberg but the crashing into it that was the problem.
 
WLDB
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminatorView Post

did the iceberg survive the collision?

Maybe for a month or so.
 
Ron in Regina
+1
#13
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#14
No, it was not the moon, nor was it an iceberg, it appears to have been stupidity, the iceberg and the moon were just incidental. Last weekend I saw the display of Titanic artifacts at the Sask. Science Centre, and the story they told was that despite several warnings from other ships in the area that there was an unusually large number of icebergs present, RMS Titanic continued to steam along at 21 knots, almost top speed, in the dark. The helmsman saw the iceberg, turned hard to port to avoid it, and managed to avoid a head on collision, but a spur on the berg ripped open six of the ship's watertight compartments below the waterline on the starboard side. It was designed to survive the failure of four, so down she went.
 
Kathie Bondar
#15
I thought the moon was responsible for the menstruation cycle. What does the Titanic have to do with it?
 
skookumchuck
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Kathie BondarView Post

I thought the moon was responsible for the menstruation cycle. What does the Titanic have to do with it?

Trade that menstruation cycle in on a Honda, they dodge icebergs way better
 
Dexter Sinister
#17
The Titanic, the moon, and menstruation, are unrelated, in any combination.
 
WLDB
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

No, it was not the moon, nor was it an iceberg, it appears to have been stupidity, the iceberg and the moon were just incidental. Last weekend I saw the display of Titanic artifacts at the Sask. Science Centre, and the story they told was that despite several warnings from other ships in the area that there was an unusually large number of icebergs present, RMS Titanic continued to steam along at 21 knots, almost top speed, in the dark. The helmsman saw the iceberg, turned hard to port to avoid it, and managed to avoid a head on collision, but a spur on the berg ripped open six of the ship's watertight compartments below the waterline on the starboard side. It was designed to survive the failure of four, so down she went.

True. Tons of stupidity. It might have helped had the warnings actually reached the bridge. Unfortunately the radio operators worked for the marconi company and were not part of the crew. They were there for the amusement of the passengers.

A head on collision would have been better.
 
Dexter Sinister
#19
Yep, she probably wouldn't have sunk after a head on collision. Lot of passengers would have been knocked around, but I'm sure the loss of life would have been far less. And there was the problem with not enough lifeboats for the number of people on board, a decision in retrospect of surpassing stupidity. And hubris: the ship was supposedly unsinkable after all...
 
#juan
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Yep, she probably wouldn't have sunk after a head on collision. Lot of passengers would have been knocked around, but I'm sure the loss of life would have been far less. And there was the problem with not enough lifeboats for the number of people on board, a decision in retrospect of surpassing stupidity. And hubris: the ship was supposedly unsinkable after all...

I wonder if those fifteen hundred people would have sailed on that ship if they had known that the ship was not yet "unsinkable" and that it would never be unsinkable. Canard made a big deal about the ship being "unsinkable when they knew it wasn't. The number of life boats was criminal. There was room to charge everyone from the owners down to the Captain with something, but a hundred years fades most things.
 
WLDB
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I wonder if those fifteen hundred people would have sailed on that ship if they had known that the ship was not yet "unsinkable" and that it would never be unsinkable. Canard made a big deal about the ship being "unsinkable when they knew it wasn't. The number of life boats was criminal.

Cunard didnt own or build the ship. They had the Lusitania and Mauretania, also believed to be unsinkable, also sailing without enough lifeboats. Almost no major liner had enough lifeboats for all on board at the time. It wasnt criminal as the law allowed it. The laws didnt keep up with the size of ships. It would have been easier to just say all ships must have enough lifeboats for all on board rather than base it on tonnage. Titanic did actually have more lifeboats than the law required. The death toll also could have been a lot lower had the lifeboats been filled to capacity. Another 450-500 people could have been saved easily.
 
EagleSmack
#22
Not to mention that they filled a bunch of boats with women only. If there were no more women around they lowered the boat leaving men behind watching a partially filled boat cast away.
 
SLM
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I wonder if those fifteen hundred people would have sailed on that ship if they had known that the ship was not yet "unsinkable" and that it would never be unsinkable.

I'll be you they would have no problems filling that boat with passengers.

People will attend the opening of an envelope as long as it's "new".
 
#juan
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Cunard didnt own or build the ship. They had the Lusitania and Mauretania, also believed to be unsinkable, also sailing without enough lifeboats. Almost no major liner had enough lifeboats for all on board at the time. It wasnt criminal as the law allowed it. The laws didnt keep up with the size of ships. It would have been easier to just say all ships must have enough lifeboats for all on board rather than base it on tonnage. Titanic did actually have more lifeboats than the law required. The death toll also could have been a lot lower had the lifeboats been filled to capacity. Another 450-500 people could have been saved easily.

It slipped my mind that J.P. Morgan owned the Titanic and that he had his own private cabin on that ship. He was supposed to sail with her on the maiden voyage but for some reason he didn't. There were a lot of these so-called "unsinkable" ships around at that time: the Titanic, Britannic, Mauretania, Lusitania, a couple others, (sp), and they all sank. (granted, some were torpedoed) The number of life boats rquired was far less than weas needed.
 
WLDB
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

It slipped my mind that J.P. Morgan owned the Titanic and that he had his own private cabin on that ship. He was supposed to sail with her on the maiden voyage but for some reason he didn't. There were a lot of these so-called "unsinkable" ships around at that time: the Titanic, Britannic, Mauretania, Lusitania, a couple others, (sp), and they all sank. (granted, some were torpedoed) The number of life boats rquired was far less than weas needed.

He cancelled at the last minute because he was ill. Probably saved his life, then again Ismay survived. The cabin he was supposed to be in was re-produced in the 1997 film as the one where Rose stays. The set was pretty much perfect in terms of accuracy.

Also the Mauretania didn't sink, it was scrapped in the mid 30s alongside Titanic's sister ship Olympic.

Lusitania was another one sunk by stupidity. The Admiralty knew there was a submarine in the area and could have diverted the Lusitania away but didn't. That was a very lucky shot for the submaring though. Normally one torpedo wouldn't have done much to a ship that size but they hit in exactly the worst spot.

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Not to mention that they filled a bunch of boats with women only. If there were no more women around they lowered the boat leaving men behind watching a partially filled boat cast away.

Indeed, second officer Lightoller interpreted "women and children first" to mean "women and children ONLY." That led to a lot of people dying unnecesarrily. On the other side of the ship first officer Murdoch took the order as "women and children first" and if no women were around let men in. He may have felt some guilt, having been the officer in charge at the time of the collision. 2/3 of the survivors were from boats he was in charge of filling and lowering.
 
JLM
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I'll be you they would have no problems filling that boat with passengers.

People will attend the opening of an envelope as long as it's "new".

Only if there is a cheque in it!
 

Similar Threads

0
Last Titanic Survivor Dies
by Cannuck | May 31st, 2009
4
Titanic Survivor Dies
by I think not | May 10th, 2006
1
RMS Titanic
by Jersay | Jan 3rd, 2006
no new posts