It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Titanic Sunk by "Supermoon" and Celestial Alignment?

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Well, I'm not buying it but these are two very reputable websites. This on the eve of a full moon.
Nobody's on a cruise here are they?

news.nationalgeographic.com...


An ultrarare alignment of the sun, the full moon, and Earth, they say, may have set the April 14, 1912, tragedy in motion, according to a new report.




news.discovery.com...


It will be 100 years next month since its tragic sinking on April 14, 1912, but the Titanic still haunts us, and definitely still has the mojo to get people buzzing. The latest news comes to us courtesy of the April 2012 issue of Sky & Telescope, in which our favorite "forensic astronomer," Texas State University-San Marcos' Donald Olson, presents his hypothesis on how the moon might have contributed to the ocean liner's demise, taking 1500 people with it into the icy depths.


And to punish you further:





posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I'm glad you start that off by saying you don't personally buy it.


I'd see this kind of speculation if we were still hunting for the wreck to examine it for the story of what really happened that night..but I'm missing something. What does alignments in space have to do with a poorly designed ship (small rudder...way too small) sailing right into an Iceburg like a drunk after last call?

I kinda thought the mysteries of the Titanic were solved when they spent a couple seasons running over the wreck, inch by inch and rivet by rivet for what they could see. Sounds like an entirely understandable tragedy from what I've heard of it.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Why? Why would they bother to say such things?
What the Hell does "reputable" really mean, well funded and supported by mainstream?

I quit, this planet needs some huge X flares to burn off all the garbage.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Or a an iceberg that ripped a hole in the ship that is visible in the wreckage.. I personally buy the official story.. If an alignment like that were capable of downing a ship it would have done far more damage than just that.. The Titanic wasn't the only ship in the area mind you..

But again - the iceberg damage is quite visible on the hull and it's well documented that the crew and passengers spotted it before colliding.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I kinda thought the mysteries of the Titanic were solved when they spent a couple seasons running over the wreck, inch by inch and rivet by rivet for what they could see. Sounds like an entirely understandable tragedy from what I've heard of it.


There's no mystery really - they've studied the Titanic extensively and they know pretty much what happened minute by minute.. the steel on the ship has also been tested and found to be very brittle at cold temperatures, when they tested it by cooling the material and then hitting it with high impact, the steel literally shattered like glass.

There were survivors, both passengers and crew.. they also help close the case because many of them saw the iceberg before impact.. passengers were even playing with chunks of it that came on deck during the collision, fully unaware that the water tight compartments were compromised and the ship was taking on water..



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Wrabbit, I love your posts. You always describe what I try to explain.

The question to me is why are these sites coming out with this stuff? This is supposed to be major league journalism. One periodical comes out and everyone is all over the bandwagon.

Let's think this through first before we ape our competitor and reveal what we really are.

This can be applied to any media, ad naseum.

Sorry for the rant.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by UFO1414
 

Oh, no rant. You make a good point. Beyond the obvious of how this suggestion by media is beyond silly.......the fact they keep finding new ways and situations to work in references to trouble from space isn't silly. I take that as what you're talking about in looking at this carefully.

On that, I think you're right. Either the reporters are just having a space case phase when they're at their reporter bars after work..and that is how they all seem to be thinking along the same lines...or, there is some effort to get people at least comfortable with the terms and concepts before something far more important becomes the story to report. Am I reading you right in your concerns? From that angle, the story is anything but trivial.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
It hit an iceberg. End of story.
Alignments & the devil can't be thrown into every
story every time someone dies.
edit on 7-3-2012 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
The article (discovery.com) talks about a higher than normal number of icebergs in the shipping lanes...


So what does the moon have to with all this? It all comes down to tides, and the moon's influence thereof. Specifically, on January 4, 1912, there was a rare alignment of the moon and sun, such that the two bodies' gravitational pulls added together to produce a "spring tide" -- abnormally high tides.

It's an hypothesis first predicted by the late coeanographer Fergus J. Wood, according to the TSU press release;Olson and his team finally determined how this might have come about. Specifically, the moon was at its closet to the Earth in some 1400 years (the perigee), an effect that was exacerbated because the Earth was also at its closest approach to the sun the day before

Olson figured it wouldn't be helpful to check to see if the higher tides led to more glacial caving in Greenland, the source of most of the icebergs in that region. The icebergs needed time to float down to the shipping lanes and get in the direct path of the Titanic.

Why were there so many icebergs that April, that even the rescue ships were forced to slow down? Normally, as the bergs make their way out of Greenland, they become grounded in shallower waters off the Newfoundland coast, so it can take a berg several years to melt enough to "unstick" and continue its southward journey.

The unusually high tides in the winter of 1912, however, dislodged icebergs that would otherwise have remained stuck for much longer, giving them just enough time to reach the shipping lanes. "We don't claim to know exactly where the Titanic iceberg was in January 1912 -- nobody can know that -- but this is a plausable scenario intended to be scientifically reasonable," says Olson.

edit on 3/7/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Folks,the theory does attribute the sinking to an iceberg-

In a nutshell they are saying that this alignment of Sun,Earth and Moon caused a particularly high tide on January 4th,which led to a load of ice bergs traveling off to where they would not have been,without this high tide.

One of those sadly ripped into the Titanic.


The theory does not say the Moon Sun or alignment caused the sinking directly-It says it made the icebergs move into the area.




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
whats crazy is there was a book written before the titanic sunk that almost explained the titanic story to T. name of the ship in the book The TITAN has any body else heard of this?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Silcone Synapse

I see that you read the material.


It makes much more sense afterward,



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by UFO1414
 


for pitys sake - now even the OP doesnt bother to read his thread sources

the events of janurary spawned an abnormally large ice feild which drifted sout into the shipping lanes in april

what dont you understand

icebergs were ununually prevelant that april - other ships did stop for the night - titanic did not



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Lack of buoyancy is what most likely caused the titanic to sink. Possibly caused by some kind of damage done to the boat. Interesting post though. Good read.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I thought an Iceberg and Leonardo Dicaprio sunk it...

Why are we doing this to to the titanic? What's the motive and reasoning?

1. It wasn't the Kraken
2. It wasnt a german submarine
3. It wasn't the super moon from Final Fantasy 2 (or 4).

it was a iceberg >.<



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I'll go along with the theory that the alignment might have caused a higher tide than usual off the Labrador/Newfoundland coast and may have contributed to a larger-than-normal number of icebergs in the North Atlantic during that year.

Has nothing to do, however, with the supreme arrogance of the White Star Line (and their criminal negligence) in not providing enough life-saving equipment aboard ship...nor with the complacency of a captain who had sailed the route so many times that he felt justified in ignoring REPEATED iceberg warnings from other ships and his compliance with the White Star representative's (Bruce Ismay) desire to test her speed and try to reach New York faster than usual...nor the decision on the bridge to try to turn the vessel after sighting the berg (belatedly because there were no binoculars in the crows nest), rather than immediately throwing the propellers hard into reverse and hitting it head-on (which might have caused major damage to the bow but possibly saved the ship).

It was a confluence of circumstance - environmental and man-made...and mostly it was a matter of the ship being in the wrong place at the wrong time...when any number of minor decisions or environmental factors might have avoided the tragedy.
edit on 7-3-2012 by Jansy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
www.security-faqs.com...

just putting it out for those who have never come across this.
i watched a docu on this a few years ago and i was personally
intrigued at the possibility of a switch resulting in a seriously
weakened hull prior to the iceberg collision. others comments
on the above link are also interesting imo.
regards fakedirt.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
In addition to fakedirt's post...

HMS Hawke collision with Olympic


The linked picture shows the damage a metal ship (HMS Hawke) did to one of Titanic's sister ships. Please note the large hole above the waterline which is apparently nothing compared to the damage underneath the waterline. Does ice really beat steel?

ETA It is my conspiratorial opinion that the Hawke collision with Olympic was a test for what was to come later. Whether it was a ship or some other metal object would seem to be a distinct possibility.
edit on 22/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join