The problem with the Californian is that they didn't knew what was happening with the ship, even further from their perspective what they saw was perfectly normal for anyone who sailed those waters at the time. To make the long story short: For a rocket barrage of any kind to be considered an "distress signal" it had to be launched by a 5 minutes interval between each rocket. Otherwise it would be accepted as "company signals" since most ships didn't had Marconi communication onboard and they used this rocket system to communicate with other vessels far in the distance. The crew of the Titanic fired the rocket at an interval of about 12 to 15 minutes. During the night the Californian notified to the Titanic that they were forced to stop due to a wall of ice in front of them. By the time they saw the Titanic sitting cold far away, they assumed the ship did the same for the night, and with the rockets the crew thought they were sending signals to other ships around who might not have communication equipment aside from Morse lamps, again a standard practice of the time. As for those Morse lamps, the Californian did sent many signals to Titanic but they never got a reply. Finally, due to the cold mirage in the horizon, the very same one that cloaked the iceberg for the Titanic, it was impossible to see the ship with clarity from Californian's perspective, the light was very distorted so much in fact that the light signals sent back and fort between the Californian and Titanic never reached their destinations. Titanic never knew the Californian was sending Morse code thru the lamp at the bridge, nor the Californian knew the Titanic was doing the same to them. Maybe as a final point: The Californian stopped and vented most of its steam if not turned down its boilers, so there is a possibility that even if they wanted to go for a rescue, it would require them an hour or so just to have enough steam for movement, then maybe 30 or more minutes to navigate the wall of ice around them (with the danger of a catastrophic collision) and ONLY THEN steam towards the sinking ship. For the record, during the early lights of the morning when the Marconi operator at the Californian returned to his station and notified the captain that the Titanic had sunk, it took the Californian more than an hour and half in open daylight to restart the boilers and navigate the ice in order to reach the Titanic's last position. Of course this last part, the Marconi operator, is the only real BLAME we can put over the captain's shoulders, he should have asked for the operator to be waken up, but then again, from the crew's perspective in the bridge, the Titanic was just a ship sending company rockets into the sky, dead in the water due to the wall of ice (as them), therefore from their perspective there was no indication of a disaster happening over there in the distance. I know this is one hell of a wall of text, in a "long story short" arc, but still I hope it served you well.

No it wasn't. The build quality sucked did you not watch the video? 🙄 Idio t

Esotericcelt, I don’t know where you got the idea that the Californian was titled the USS Californian, she was the ss Californian, a British leyland line steam ship.

I understand that the color of the rockets were the wrong color, and signal something other than RESCUE US!!!

The ss californian was actually 19 nautical miles away from the distress signal given my the titanic (which was actually wrong) she wouldn't have made it in time to save anyone as she was approximately 3hrs away as well. There were closer ships like the Samson, mount temple, parisian were all closer,

For a real hoot check out the British R-100 vs. R-101 competition. Why the goobs even initiated the whole thing. So the R-100 was to be commercial and the R-101 goobs. Spoiler alert. The ending could not be more symbolic. The R-100 on time, on budget and passed it's transatlantic round trip to Canada, with passengers, with flying colors. The R-101 well past schedule, well over budget. You're not going to believe the level of symbolism here folks. The R-101 on it's maiden passenger flight to India made it across the channel and within a few minutes CRASHED AND BURNED!!!!!!!! LITERALLY!!!!!! IN COASTAL FRANCE FER CRYIN' OUT LOUD!!! Now those in the know will say it crashed in a thunderstorm something it was highly vulnerable to. That is true but see the R-101 having had their faced shoved in it by the R-100 and being far past schedule and overbudget was under severe pressure by the political leadership to make it happen. Well they made something happen. FYI both Barnes Wallis (I love that guy. Britain's version of the Mad Scientist) and Neville Shute worked on the R-100.

The much more modern Costa Concordia also sank in less time. That proves the design of the Titanic was not so bad as some people say, considering the time she was built, when a lot of things that are common knowledge in engineering now, were unknown.

@@chezsnailez Titanic did not develop a list, so all lifeboats could be launched. It has been suggested that if there had been forty lifeboats, rather than twenty, there would not have been sufficient time to launch all forty, however, if there had been onboard lifeboats, these could have been unlashed and would probably have floated free. There were no rafts. The designers thought them old fashioned and dangerous, since they had to be thrown into the water after which the passengers would have to climb down rope ladders.

@@jmrodas9 Although according to this documentary there were a few issues with subpar rivets in the forward compartment, I believe that it was clearly human error and pure bad luck that caused the sinking over any single design flaw.

Exactly, the word you're looking for is it created a mirage. The watchmen testified as much saying the night was weird, clear and "hazy/foggy" at the same time. Because they all properly believed they should have seen the iceberg in time given the clear weather conditions, yet somehow they didn't. The thermal differences also made the attempts for the nearby ships to communicate via light signals/flares to fail as well as it disrupted those lights as well.

Interesting

Yes. Just another asinine quotable made for generating interest in the crapumentary.

In a way she was. The Titanic's troubles begin with her very name; Titanic is the adjective for Titan, and the Titans in Greek mythology were a race who waged war against Zeus, the so-called "god of gods." This is the part of the story that seems familiar to quite a few. The part that seems unknown to most, shipowners at the time included, is that - guess what - the Titans lost. So, the Titanic was eventually defeated by her very name, as it were - and during her maiden voyage, at that .

All should be water tight, if u really want floatation

I first remember buying this documentary around 2010; as far as why the bulkheads were not taller, they designed the Titanic from the most EXPENSIVE hotels at the time. They didn’t want people to believe they were on a ship, except a high end hotel. Naturally, that illusion was gone after this incident and they literally rebuilt the Olympic and Britanic from the flaws of the Titanic. Taller bulkheads and double skin around the waterline. Ocean Liner Designs explored this evolution of Ships quite thoroughly and a channel I would heavily recommend.

What is called the "titanic" is in reality the "olympic", ol EJ Smith carried out his jesuit handlers plans, olympic was damaged badly from previous crashes and no longer insurable, white star line would take a complete loss on that ship so they changed her name over to an insured ships name and sunk her deep so they would for sure collect on the insurance, for one they should have hit the ice berg head on, the ship likely would have not sunk but they went full speed through an ice field, that's like you driving in the snow and ice with your foot all the way down on the go pedal, of course you will hit something, and EJ always intended to hit a berg, he was ordered to do so.

They said the titanic sank 96 years ago, so simple maths would mean this doco was made in 2008. In other words 16 years ago.

@@darrellhicks360 What?! Titanic had the same design as Olympic. 100% the same. Except for the lux.

There is a thing in airline safety that recognises these cumulative events . I'm not sure what the name is but they use it in the airline industry to mitigate disasters . I wish I could recall what the strategy is called .

@@lifesahobby Yes, it's called "travel insurance."

Except, of course, Titanic was never at full speed, as five boilers were never connected. 'Her crew wasn't even sure she would make the journey.' Where did you get that nonsensical comment from?

​@dovetonsturdee7033 Carpathia was an old, slow ship--but with a smarter, more ice field savvy captain than the Titanic. They put lookouts on the bow of the ship as well as in the masthead, plus gave them all binoculars. Its max speed was only 16 knots and it went far faster than the engines could safely go through the dangerous ice field to rescue the Titanic survivors.

@@egm8602 Carpathia was only nine years old at the time, and not slow by any standards other than the Mauretanias of the Olympics. Are you sure about the lookouts and their binoculars? I have not seen any reference to Carpathia's lookouts being issued with these items.

​@@dovetonsturdee7033all ships would have multiple pairs of binoculars. But binoculars can make scanning more difficult. If you're speeding through an ice field you would want people scanning with and without binoculars and an alert Bridge crew ready to respond.

@@jice7074 In accordance with the practice of the time, Titanic's lookouts had already been alerted of the need for particular vigilance, and the Bridge crew were were they were because of their ability to respond to any situation. The purpose of lookouts was to alert the Watchkeeping Officers of any sightings. Those officers, who had binoculars, would then identify the object and determine a course of action. The unusually calm sea, and the abnormal weather conditions, resulted in the iceberg not being seen until too late.

Thanks

Thanks, I saw the info about cheaper, inferior rivets being used in another, older documentary - this appears to be a rip off of that. I'd like to know what year this show was made.

Thanks legend

@@glamdolly302008

Many thanks, heard rivet theory before. But how come Olympic built with same rivets survived for decades?

The date for her 2nd departure from Southampton was 10th April, so her sinking would have happened during that voyage instead.

Fate sank Titanic.

The titanic is really the olympic and visa versa, they changed the names to protect the insured.

​@@PatrickBaptistthey was not the same they was a bit different from each other but you never know

@@adriantowe278 Yeah we don't really know, most of us were not even there, but who would want to eat that kinda loss? Companies sure won't, they were already bad off in the money department, as even with the loss covered that still didn't stop white star from burning as a company, they would have much sooner with the insured loss, hey I'd want to keep my homies at work with me, insurance would be the first thing most any of us wouldn't care to let suffer rather than us, insurance companies have it coming anyways, specially today. When you learn about the occult cults that run our countries and world, it all starts making more sense why things happen the way they do. It was all planned out before the boat set sail, answers why anyone you take off in a boat with a fire in coal hold, fire at sea is a sailors worst nightmare.

@@PatrickBaptist thanks for your comment I appreciate it take care mate

I dont think that's the real Capt Smith either!

One of them, the Britannic, didn't really last that long; she began service in December 1915 and she sank in November 1916. Like the Titanic she lasted less than a year (if slightly) .

In other words, Titanic had no 'hidden weakness' but was simply the victim of a circumstance far beyong anything which could have been predicted, or for which she had been designed.

Steel was made during the classical eras of Ancient China, India, and Rome.

​@@allyedowd yes, but that is Sword smithing, engineering steels are quite different

They used wrought iron for the rivets.....

@@PatrickBaptist That is only on a tiny area of the ship where the machinery couldn't reach and they had to manually place them. They used steel everywhere else. And the wrought iron was for it's time good as far as they knew how it worked

@@allyedowd Steel wasn't used in ships until 20 or so years prior to Titanic...

Thankyou

What a pity that no one said that. Except in a movie, of course.

Her name was a weakness too. The Titans in Greek mythology were warriors that tried to overthrow the supreme god, Zeus, and - they lost! So her own name was a problem too, it's symbolic of defeat.

@@WalterKehl-p7s Look up 'Titan' in any dictionary. You will find two definitions, the relevant one being, 'one that is gigantic in size or power : one that stands out for greatness of achievement.' By the way, fm, you don't need to use your alter ego. You have been rumbled, little chap.

@@dovetonsturdee7033 " Look up 'Titan' in any dictionary. You will find two definitions, the relevant one being, 'one that is gigantic in size or power : one that stands out for greatness of achievement.' By the way, fm, you don't need to use your alter ego. You have been rumbled, little chap. " ....

yes it was , weak riverts

​@@CristinaSimonsen nah, the rivets they had at the time were the highest quality

It was all because of faulty design; the watertight bulkheads weren't capped off with watertight tops so the Titanic sank like an ordinary ice cube tray. No one imagined anything worse than two breached compartments

@@fmyoung there was also a coal fire going on during the final fueling process, witch weakened the hull at the spot of impact , there's pictures they found years later that shows a darker location were the ice burg hit from scorching marks and the bulkhead near the fire was warped, the photos were found in an attic of an old person that took them as the ship was leaving harbor, i know some people say that the fire wouldn't have done enough damage but imo it probably made it easier for the burg to pernitrate the hull

​@@albiedam33122nd highest quality, they talk about it in this documentary. They shouldve had number 4 rivets but opted instead for number 3 which were a poorer quality

These binoculars were a precious tool 😂. Safety was mostly just a word back then.

The binoculars were an irrelevant red herring. Lookouts rarely used them.

From what we've read, the White Star's binoculars weren't very good...

Good thing that Frederick Fleet instantly knew what that bump on the horizon was, binocs or no

@@dovetonsturdee7033 exactly, there's another docu on youtube that answered how Titanic missed seeing the iceberg in time and was the real cause. Yes, there was no moon, but the stars in the clear sky provided ample light to see it in time. The iceberg was inside a very cold front which created a mirage - unlike a heat mirage that forces the skyline to go down and objects float, cold forces it up and reduces your viewing distance. The watches testimony said as much, the sky was clear yet hazy - the hazy part was the mirage of the water being raised. This would hide the iceberg from being seen in time. Passengers commented on how fast it got very cold that night. The cold pocket would also disrupt the light messages/flares from the ships nearby making it impossible to communicate afterwards for help. This person found the logs of the ships near Titanic before/after the sinking and they all captured temperature data and he was able to map out the cold pocket that would create the mirage.

yeah Britannic hit a mine, lasted twice as long as Lusitania. Concordia got a few dings and was ferked almost right away. Titanic exposed 1/3rd of her length to the ocean, took almost 3 hours, could have got all passengers and crew off with good enough training & lifeboats, nothing wrong with the design lol

Problem was that she was on fire in the coal bunkers

@@andyb.1026 No, she wasn't. Stoker survivors testified that a fire in one of 19 bunkers had been dealt with at least a day before the collision, and that the only damage was to paintwork in the affected bunker. Of course, you haven't read the minutes of either Inquiry, have you?

The procedure at the time was to maintain course and speed, but to alert lookouts of the need for extra vigilance. Which Smith did. In fact several Master Mariners & Liner Captains testified that, in a similar situation, they would have acted as Captain Smith did. But, of course, you probably haven't read the Inquiry Minutes, have you?

@@dovetonsturdee7033 No I have not read them. The procedure at the time was to slow or stop if you get ice warnings. Plus the lookouts did not even have binoculars. It was just a perfect storm of bad luck.

@@richardmcdowell534 The procedure in 1912 was to get through possible hazards as quickly as possible. Seems ridiculous now, but that's how it was.

The Titanic and her sister-ships were well design at the time. In fact, the Olympic, her older sister, survive a collision with the H.M.S. Hawke in September 1911 who was design to sink other ships

The rivets didn't pop, they were sheared off by the density of the ice and on a side note thousands upon thousands of the rivets were flush set rivets and thoroughly painted to make the steel appear smooth.

The binoculars are a complete Red Herring. Lookouts rarely used them, as the roles of lookouts was to scan the whole of the horizon, not simply parts of it. Had anything been seen, they would alert the Bridge officers, who would then identify what it was.

That's what I thought. They could've gotten into it if they wanted to.

@@TaurusMoon-hu3pd It still wouldn't have made the binoculars any more relevant, as they simply were not.

You need to take a time out.

Are you suggesting the names of all 1512 that perished should have been named instead? Don't know what that would do to the run time of the documentary.

Then take a sleeping pill, Doofus . . .

​@@quietguy1948I would love a sleeping pill I struggle to get to sleep

The ship wasn't at full speed, and White Star did pay compensation. Apart from that, good points!

WS did pay for damages but the amount was whittled down to quite a bit, and then it doesn't help that in an effort to avoid lawsuits White Star sent representatives to hospitals where victims were recovering and tricked them into signing declarations that they wouldn't sue for damages in exchange for 25 pounds. That's downright obscene

Oh and they weren't quite going full-speed but they were super-close .

I remember reading how the White Star line representives showed up at the hospitals to have the victims of a unsinkable ship, sign their rights away (pretty much)

@@fmyoung 'That's downright obscene' It would have been had it been true, but the only supposed evidence was a single unsubstantiated allegation made by one person, Annie Kelly, in the Chicago Daily Journal. The allegation said $25, by the way, not £25. Of course, if you have actual evidence to the contrary, you could always present it? Yes, of course the Company, as any other company would, defended itself in court and sought to limit the damages it was required to pay. When the cases were resolved, White Star abided by the judgements handed down.

You might not think this is very good, but it has a lot of truth to it. They were far too complacent They should have broke the lock on the locker to get the binoculars and not steamed full speed ahead during the middle of the night. Captain Smith sounds like he was senile and just coasting in his role as captain.

Rubbish, it's well done.

That's simply not true. The liner wasn't so rigid that all the hull's rivets would have instantly sheered off upon impact. The whole vessel would have absorbed the collision with the first two maybe three compartments flooding. That's not suggesting First Officer Murdock shouldn't have tried porting around the offending iceberg. He did everything he could have done, there simply wasn't enough ocean between Titanic and the berg.

@@RobbyHouseIV well considering they have done 3-D modeling. Because of the bulkheads being lower than most ships even to date. That it had a profounding effect on the way it absorbed energy. And it still sunk After the strike head on. But there are people that want to believe there theory that if they were in charge that the outcome would have been different. And been a silent hero in history. But you are wrong brother. They was a firm in Japan that held the program for assignment

That was the kind of dialog Cpt Smith and Lightoller had too when they discussed ice precautions. They both talked like teens.

@@fmyoung Source? None, I assume.

@@dovetonsturdee7033 "Highlighted reply" here too "Source? None, I assume"

I know right Just like teens really As Walter Lord puts it in "The Night Lives On" at the end of ch. 6 "Everything was against us? The wonder is that [the Titanic] lasted as long as she did"

@@fmyoung Thank you for confirming that you read my last message. Even if, evidently, you are unable to provide an answer to it.

No, it didn't. The fire in a coal bunker, arising from spontaneous combustion, had been dealt with around 24 hours before the collision. According to the testimony of stoker survivors, the only damage was to paintwork in the bunker.

I went from one documentary, but I have researched further and am now happy to agree with you.

@@Chris-mv5yg Good for you. I am delighted that you did a little more research, as so many refuse. I commend you for your honesty & integrity. There really isn't much of either around these days!

Exactly. I'm not even gonna watch the rest. Sidenote: I've also heard the Titanic being called the worst maritime peace-time disaster, which is also not true. People keep forgetting about the Doña Paz with 4300 deaths.

@@echoplots8058 I stopped watching after 2 minutes. Couldn't stand the ammount of bs

@@AR_119 i recall a different scientist investigating the rivets not this woman.. back in the 90s

@@user-nv1gm2zj7y YES! I saw that original documentary too, this is a rip off.

Yeah and there was another one also..but i.m not sure of the name ..was it the empress of Ireland maybe...I feel my memory at 70 rusting away like the ships...😮😮

Two compartments were compromised when RMS Olympic collided with HMS Hawke. She was never in danger of sinking as a result.

@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Andrea Doria was struck in a similar way and foundered, for the same reason as the Oceanos, because she developed a list. It seems to depend very much on the trim of the vessel when it is struck. Possibly, by chance, the Olympic was more in ballast on the side opposite to the side which was struck. Or, it may depend upon how the water flowing in is able to settle. If the water is not able to settle evenly, because of the existence of bulkheads or other barriers running fore and aft, then the vessel will begin to list and once the list becomes severe enough, if there are open portholes, the ingress of water along the length of the vessel will exacerbate the list.

Had the SS Californian had it's wire system on, lmany more lives would have been saved. I didn't hear the narrator say it but wasn't it mandated that all ships must have the Marconi systems on and manned 24/7 while at sea after the Titanic sinking?

@@zsigzsag I think what the new law mandated was someone on duty in the radio room at all times .

Explain RMS Olympic then.

True

Took an hour an half to load 13 boats. The last 1 or 2 collapsible boats were wasted because it was just too late in the sinking process. How long would it take to load 48?

@@seanharper8488 I hear they would've been able to load 48 boats if (a) they had realized the seriousness of the situation sooner (as opposed to thinking she was unsinkable) and (b) if the crew had been more organized and both crew and passengers had lifeboat assignments (so no one lost time wondering where to go)

Really? I doubt any sea officer of the time would have allowed such a collision when a swift course change might have avoided it completely. Do you find having the benefit of hindsight useful?

He must've been super-glad about the turn of events that prevented him from ever boarding the ship. That reminds me of Alfred, Bertram and Thomas Slade, along with trimmer Alfred Penney and stokers Alfred Podesta and William Nutbean who missed the Titanic after lingering at this pub, the Grapes, a bit too long. Five days later they too must've been super-glad about this totally unexpected turn in their luck .

A bit nebulous, but what realistic variable would you choose to adjust so as to mitigate matters?

I don't think it would be possible. The iceberg that struck the Titanic was probably like a mountain so it would be difficult to claim on it and of course an iceberg is cold. Frederick Fleet describe it as an iceberg with 2 pikes and it was very, but very dark that night so you wouldn't be able to see the iceberg anyway.

Yes, it does sound crazy. The iceberg and the ship were not in contact for any length of time.

We'd read about how the Captain of the Exxon Valdez managed to keep the ship from foundering completely by keeping its engine at 'dead slow ahead' against the rocks. This meant only one or two of the cargo tanks were split open, instead of all of them. Imagine if Captain Smith (or Officer Murdoch) had had the presence of mind (and time) to back the Titanic up, nose her onto the iceberg and 'park' enough of her bow onto the berg and hold it there 'til help arrived. Maybe even to been able to patch the damage and get the pumps running to get to the nearest port...

@@chezsnailez Sorry, but the suggestion is pure fantasy.

Perhaps because it was irrelevant to the sinking? There had indeed been a fire, caused by spontaneous combustion, in one of 19 bunkers. It was detected in Southampton, and dealt with some 24 hours before the collision. According to testimony at the subsequent Inquiry, there was no damage to the structure of the ship, only to paintwork in the affected bunker. People who get excited about this fire never seem able to address one simple question, which is:- Had Joseph Bell gone to Captain Smith and told him that there was, apparently, a raging fire below decks, is it credible that Smith, in reply, would have said ' Don't worry about it Joe. It is only the North Atlantic in April. With a bit of luck we might still get to New York'? Seriously?

@@dovetonsturdee7033 A few years ago I saw a doc saying fire weakened the metal. Your explanation sounds more likely.

2008

1912

@@user-jv1cz7mq3r that’s when ship sunk not when doc made

​@@CristinaSimonsen the documentary is from 1912

@@Wildrover82 The disaster is from 1912, this doc is from 2008

What should Ismay & Lightoller actually have been charged with? Not dying in a shipwreck, perhaps? By the way, Lightoller was responsible for the even numbered boats, which took 326 people, and Murdoch the odd numbered boats, which took 364.

He was unfairly vilified, especially on Cameron’s film. But according to witness testimony he was paramount at getting as many passengers in lifeboats as he could. I feel bad for him. The guilt destroyed his life

If only the 'binoculars' had any relevance to the sinking. They are the quintessential Red Herrings.

We won’t. We will never learn.

It is more than a little worrying that you are able to believe that God would confuse something which happened in a movie with something which happened (or in this case, didn't happen ) in reality.

Are you totally off your head? Or simply attempting some sort of a joke?

It would have been some achievement to drop an anchor into 13,000 feet of water.

Except that the cost to build Titanic was the same as that to build Olympic, a successful liner for over almost a quarter of a century, and still in good condition when, along with her old rival Mauretania, withdrawn in 1935. Feel free to explain that conundrum.

Actually, the Olympics were conservative in design. Certainly less advanced than their rivals, the Mauretanias.

Don't believe everything you see.

The switch theory you mean?

Capt Smith how much did you really really know about the vessel under your feet?? A significant amount. He had, after all, captained her older sister since June, 1911.

@@dovetonsturdee7033 I know he captained the Olympic but he didn't captain her too well :-D " A significant amount. He had, after all, captained her older sister since June, 1911."

@@fmyoung I know that asking you a question and expecting a reasoned answer is rather like trying to teach my cat to play chess, but here goes:- What makes you think that Smith didn't captain Olympic 'too well'?

@@dovetonsturdee7033 " I know that asking you a question and expecting a reasoned answer is rather like trying to teach my cat to play chess, but here goes:- What makes you think that Smith didn't captain Olympic 'too well'? "

She really was. Aside from enough lifeboats. Look how well she still looks. Obviously she's being eaten and eroded away but the fact that the ship looked this good for so long is a testament to her builders

People forget that materials used compared to today would be inferior. But for her time, the iron used WAS good. It's just now we know how to find impurities.

That isn’t true. There are multiple documentaries about how they used weaker iron for the rivets.

@@brynnharris-hamm1321 and theyre called conspiracy theorists