I guess that after something like that, there would be no need for fabrication. I imagine it would be terrifying to relive while giving a statement. But I pose to you this, how drunk was he? He didn't drown, so he must have had enough wits about him to know what going on...

mind you though, that baker Jourghan was drunk, so should we really give his account that much credit in being acurate?

However, Ken Marshall made a good point that the heavy reciprocating engines could have acted as a keel to pull the stern almost vertical.

I look at it like this. With 712 people as witnesses, you are ALWAYS going to get conflicting stories. Think of that cousin of yours who has a penchant for making things more grand than they are. Then think of your conservative aunt, who almost always saves the best details for herself when telling a story like this. I think that Cameron took the best of both of those types of person and combined them, along with a mojority of the eyewitness acounts, and made a film.

As for the sinking and final plunge... The Baker actually lived what was depicted in the film, as the ship went under. It was said that he didn't even get his hair wet. He survived after being in the water for over 4 hours. Most people didn't even make it past the first 30 minutes in the 28 degree water. His story seems to be the basis of this, and would suggest that the stern was up-ended like the film portrayed.

I think it's as accurate as can be filmed. And let's face it, you don't have to 'play up' something this tragic for it to be effective. I think he did it this way because he truly believe this is how it went. The historians on the film thought that the breakup ocurred a little closer to the water line, and that maybe the ship was too far above water in the film, but they agreed that this was the way of it.

Quote:

Did you even read these posts? No one said it did not break in half. We are debating if the new movie depicted it breaking in half accurately.

Also, if it didn't split, why is that when they found the ship the Titanic's stern section about 600m away from the bow section? Just wondering :)

Mathmatically speaking, it is entirely possible and a great probability that it did in fact break in half. With the suction just pulling it down and then, nothing. There wouldn't have been many waves.

i am going on new evidence of this,

the titanic actually only reached a 11 degree tilt before it broke, it did not break through the double hull, the ship then started to fill with water pulling the middle of the ship down causing it to bend back onto itself, this causing the titanic to break from the bottom up!

Ema here,

Here are the 2 pictures of Titanic breaking up!

Attached file:   split aerial-crack.jpg (27.30 KB)

---

Attached file:   split_aerial-funnels-fall.jpg (33.96 KB)

---

I remember watching the special additon of "Titanic", and on the commentary, Ken Marshall was talking about whether or not the stern stood at a 90 degree angle after the breakup (before the final plunge).

He stated that it could have become vertical, because of the sheer weight of the reciprocating engines, which could have acted as a keel.

I'm still kinda skeptical about that though.

This is not very scientific atall but if you look at this, the ship is at the 45 degree angel like you say (which it indeed was) yet is set way further into the sea. Now I am fully aware this is a drawing and like I said it is not scientific, I am using it to help illustrate that although it did indeed go to that angel, it was much further set into the sea than the film depicted. Where as the film had well over 250ft of the ship in the air, this one has something like 100-150, which is much more likely.

Attached file:   titanic4.gif (28.05 KB)

---