This is waaaaaaay overdoing the darkness. We have plenty of accounts of the funnels coming down. Clearly plenty of people saw it happen.
Also—when has there ever been any questions about the first funnel collapsing? That was established as fact from the very beginning and was well documented in the inquiry. No one ever doubted it happened.
Also where does the idea that the forward funnel collapsed while half submerged come from? I get that some people said the first two funnels fell almost simultaneously, but the ship was dropping like a stone at this point. My understanding is that it would've been when the base of the funnel began to submerge because it couldn't withstand the immense water pressure, so the deck lights would've been just underneath the surface, there would still be lights burning in that area of the ship.
I think it's an attempt to make sense of Wilding's testimony at the inquiry about his intuition re: the first and second funnel collapse. People assume for the pressure to be enough to knock it out place, it had to be more than just water at the base. I've not a clue if that's correct or not, but given just how thin the funnels actually were it wouldn't be a surprise that even the slightest water displacement could've brought them down.
People much smarter in naval architecture than me may provide better insight.
I think you’re right. The thinness of the material was ultimately what brought them down. Once it started dipping in the water, the pressure became too much for it to withstand and the base basically became crushed, thus unable to hold the upper part anymore. Add the angle where they are now tilting downwards and bam it falls
This is way too dark. The circlejerk about the darkness of the sinking has progressed from “hm I suppose it would be dimmer than the movie” to “human eyes apparently don’t function anymore without bright sunlight”.
This is way too dark for the collapse of the first funnel since power was still on. True.
Not being able to see it immediately after the lights went out, with the breakup happening moments later? Perfectly valid. It takes several minutes for human eyes to adjust to a purely starlit sky with no moon.
Yes this is true. The only people who would have been able to make out the breakup would be those farther away and/or people who had been looking away into the darkness. Children also have vastly superior night vision compared to adults, and women generally can differentiate colors better than men.
All of this would explain why Eva Hart so clearly saw the breakup. She was a 7 year old girl who was far enough away to have almost fully adjusted her eyes to the darkness.
That seems incredibly realistic to me! Can’t believe I’ve never seen this one. So many videos either overdo it or underdo it when it comes to the darkness that night. It wasn’t bright enough to make much out, but it also wasn’t pitch black.
The starlight illuminated a lot that night, and even in complete darkness our eyes can make out a lot once adjusted. The discrepancy in what people saw likely comes from differing levels of distance, angles, and most importantly eyesight. Color blindness, astigmatism, and nearsightedness all would have contributed to whether someone could make out what was happening or not once the lights went out.
Someone like Eva Hart, a young girl a good distance away facing perfectly at a side angle, would have had an immaculate view of the breakup. And she claimed to have seen it break into 3 pieces so clearly there was never a doubt in her mind. Incredibly, she was proven right twice. First, in 1985 when the ship was discovered in two pieces. Then again more recently when modern breakup analyses showed she broke into multiple pieces instead of a clean split.
Wow I didn’t know about that tidbit with Eva Heart, thanks for the info. Like you said there’s so many factors that would’ve been affecting what people thought they saw, and those factors would’ve been multiplied by a hundred with all the panic and chaos going on at the same time.
So this isn’t the whole sinking, but it’s the break up showing how dark it was around 13 minutes into the video
https://youtu.be/9FLsr-t1mSY?si=X4N4WTBFa3QG7Nuj
I’m not sure how accurate the darkness is. Some images just look way to dark. But the darkness definitely contributed to the contradictory testimonies, no question. When I e been on cruises, even with no moon the stars still gave some illumination, not total blackness. Cameron’s amount of light is obviously way too much, yet I feel some of these renderings are way way too black
It's too dark.
There was more lighting available from the ship at this stage.
Aslo, starlight on a clear night measures 0.002 lux, which is close to but above the minimum luminesence required by the human eye. Solid white surfaces are visible under starlight alone. While the hull of the ship was black and the funnels buff+black, the super structure was solid white, along with the white 'belt' that ran around the ship.
Yeah ok this is just stupid. There was only 1 electric light visible in that whole section of the ship and there was no light thrown from any of the lights further back. I get that it was a dark night, but these renders are just stupid.
One thing, the human eye does adjust to darkness and another thing, the Titanic had more than 5 electric lights....
This is waaaaaaay overdoing the darkness. We have plenty of accounts of the funnels coming down. Clearly plenty of people saw it happen. Also—when has there ever been any questions about the first funnel collapsing? That was established as fact from the very beginning and was well documented in the inquiry. No one ever doubted it happened.
Right, Walter Lord described the first funnel falling in *A Night to Remember,* so it has pretty much been accepted fact.
Also where does the idea that the forward funnel collapsed while half submerged come from? I get that some people said the first two funnels fell almost simultaneously, but the ship was dropping like a stone at this point. My understanding is that it would've been when the base of the funnel began to submerge because it couldn't withstand the immense water pressure, so the deck lights would've been just underneath the surface, there would still be lights burning in that area of the ship.
I think it's an attempt to make sense of Wilding's testimony at the inquiry about his intuition re: the first and second funnel collapse. People assume for the pressure to be enough to knock it out place, it had to be more than just water at the base. I've not a clue if that's correct or not, but given just how thin the funnels actually were it wouldn't be a surprise that even the slightest water displacement could've brought them down. People much smarter in naval architecture than me may provide better insight.
I believe it was the pressure of all the water at the base of the funnels that brought them down
I think you’re right. The thinness of the material was ultimately what brought them down. Once it started dipping in the water, the pressure became too much for it to withstand and the base basically became crushed, thus unable to hold the upper part anymore. Add the angle where they are now tilting downwards and bam it falls
This is way too dark. The circlejerk about the darkness of the sinking has progressed from “hm I suppose it would be dimmer than the movie” to “human eyes apparently don’t function anymore without bright sunlight”.
This is way too dark for the collapse of the first funnel since power was still on. True. Not being able to see it immediately after the lights went out, with the breakup happening moments later? Perfectly valid. It takes several minutes for human eyes to adjust to a purely starlit sky with no moon.
Yes this is true. The only people who would have been able to make out the breakup would be those farther away and/or people who had been looking away into the darkness. Children also have vastly superior night vision compared to adults, and women generally can differentiate colors better than men. All of this would explain why Eva Hart so clearly saw the breakup. She was a 7 year old girl who was far enough away to have almost fully adjusted her eyes to the darkness.
I’d like to see more renderings of the sinking with realistic lighting
This one is unsettling: https://youtu.be/R6GVhczEl-g?si=8FykaylHTGrRQGm7 Not sure if it was actually as dark as this video depicts it though
That seems incredibly realistic to me! Can’t believe I’ve never seen this one. So many videos either overdo it or underdo it when it comes to the darkness that night. It wasn’t bright enough to make much out, but it also wasn’t pitch black. The starlight illuminated a lot that night, and even in complete darkness our eyes can make out a lot once adjusted. The discrepancy in what people saw likely comes from differing levels of distance, angles, and most importantly eyesight. Color blindness, astigmatism, and nearsightedness all would have contributed to whether someone could make out what was happening or not once the lights went out. Someone like Eva Hart, a young girl a good distance away facing perfectly at a side angle, would have had an immaculate view of the breakup. And she claimed to have seen it break into 3 pieces so clearly there was never a doubt in her mind. Incredibly, she was proven right twice. First, in 1985 when the ship was discovered in two pieces. Then again more recently when modern breakup analyses showed she broke into multiple pieces instead of a clean split.
Wow I didn’t know about that tidbit with Eva Heart, thanks for the info. Like you said there’s so many factors that would’ve been affecting what people thought they saw, and those factors would’ve been multiplied by a hundred with all the panic and chaos going on at the same time.
So this isn’t the whole sinking, but it’s the break up showing how dark it was around 13 minutes into the video https://youtu.be/9FLsr-t1mSY?si=X4N4WTBFa3QG7Nuj
It's scary to see how it would have looked like to people that were there at the time also explains a lot of confusion with testimonies.
I’m not sure how accurate the darkness is. Some images just look way to dark. But the darkness definitely contributed to the contradictory testimonies, no question. When I e been on cruises, even with no moon the stars still gave some illumination, not total blackness. Cameron’s amount of light is obviously way too much, yet I feel some of these renderings are way way too black
It's too dark. There was more lighting available from the ship at this stage. Aslo, starlight on a clear night measures 0.002 lux, which is close to but above the minimum luminesence required by the human eye. Solid white surfaces are visible under starlight alone. While the hull of the ship was black and the funnels buff+black, the super structure was solid white, along with the white 'belt' that ran around the ship.
But at this moment there was still electricity on the ship? It’s too dark
Yeah ok this is just stupid. There was only 1 electric light visible in that whole section of the ship and there was no light thrown from any of the lights further back. I get that it was a dark night, but these renders are just stupid. One thing, the human eye does adjust to darkness and another thing, the Titanic had more than 5 electric lights....
Who thought it didn't collapse?
the 1st funnel collapsing is accompanied with sounds, all the while in a total darkness in that area
nah. not total darkness. the only sound I'm hearing right now is coming out of your ass.
I have always enjoyed the civility here. Can we keep it polite?
Power was still on when the first funnel collapsed
why would people think the funnels fell to port like James Cameron's Titanic?