Customer Reviews

Titanic's Last Secrets: The Further Adventures of Shadow Divers John Chatterton and Richie Kohler (Thorndike Nonfiction)

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I found this book thoroughly researched and historically important; it brings out details about the Titanic saga which have previously been unknown or ignored, and it places the entire story within the larger context of the cutthroat turn-of-the-century shipping industry. It's a well-told story that's a great read.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a documentary filmmaker who has worked with John Chatterton and Richie Kohler for over 11 years on multiple projects, including the 2005 Titanic expedition described in this book. I wrote and produced two television documentaries about their discoveries at the Titanic wreck site and subsequent investigations. During that time, I had extensive contact with many of the protagonists in Brad Matsen's account, including former Harland & Wolff employee Tom McCluskie and naval architect Roger Long.

I take issue with a previous review by Daniel Allen Butler, and note that in his review he fails to divulge that he is not exactly a disinterested party, but rather an author with a competing book about Titanic. Mr. Butler also recently panned Jennifer McCarty's book as "yet another book where the authors attempt to attach themselves to the Titanic story..." I have not read Ms. McCarty's book. But it appears that Mr. Butler, whose own Titanic book was published in 1998 (just as the James Cameron film was appearing in theaters), believes he should be the last writer allowed "to cash in on the disaster and the public's apparently insatiable appetite for all things Titanic" (his snide first-line dig at Matsen).

I might be tempted to agree - if there were no new evidence. But new evidence is precisely what Matsen's book is all about. And it delivers a whopper.

While Butler's chief complaint is that Matsen's story lacks "supporting evidence," he completely ignores the two massive pieces of Titanic's double bottom hull that Chatterton and Kohler discovered (and extensively documented) in their final dive to the wreck site in August 2005.

I have spoken to a number of Titanic experts who have scrutinized Chatterton and Kohler's underwater video footage, and they unanimously agree that the 2005 double bottom find is the most significant new evidence since Robert Ballard found the wreck in 1985.

This is physical evidence, previously never analyzed, that we now know comes from the exact point where the ship broke. As Matsen explains, to someone who can read the signs, the edges where the steel fractured tell the tale of how the ship came apart. This leads Roger Long and others to the conclusion that Titanic did not rise high in the air (as shown in the famous scene in the Cameron film), but rather broke apart while still relatively horizontal.

To experts, a low-angle breakup raised an ominous question: should a ship built for service on the stormy North Atlantic have been able to withstand the angle at which Titanic broke? In other words: was the ship strong enough? To me, Matsen makes a convincing case that in light of the newest evidence, this is this is at least a legitimate question to ask.

Mr. Butler attacks Matsen's premise that "there were design flaws and engineering compromises which were known and accepted by Harland and Wolff while Titanic was being built." Matsen offers ample evidence to support this argument: contemporary accounts that Thomas Andrews originally called for thicker steel in his design, proof that Titanic's sister Olympic suffered cracking in early service (and that Harland & Wolff added additional steel to correct the problem), and additional evidence that Chatterton and Kohler uncovered during an expedition to the third sister Britannic in 2006.

Engineers with whom I've spoken make the point that compromises are part of every design. It's easy to make something excessively strong but commercially impractical; the challenge is finding the smart compromise, making it just strong enough yet still affordable to build and operate in the real world. That involves trade-offs. And that is where Matsen says Titanic's builders cut it just a little too close.

Mr. Butler also assails Matsen's treatment of Tom McCluskie. In my experience, Tom is a man of pronounced good humor, with a sharp ironic wit. Tom has told me of his health difficulties following his stroke, and various restrictions imposed by his doctor as a result. I don't find Matsen's account to unfairly paint a picture of "bitterness" toward Harland & Wolff, nor to depict what Tom has said as a "deathbed confession."

As dramatic as Tom's assertions are, Matsen has not relied on McCluskie as his only source; he has done historical homework. (How many non-fiction books for the popular market include End Notes these days? "Titanic's Last Secrets" does, and they are extensive and scrupulously detailed).

To me, Brad Matsen makes a compelling case that, whatever the actual structural strength of Titanic, in 1912 Harland & Wolff had every reason to believe that their ship had broken because it was too weak - and that, acting on that belief, they covered up what they thought about the breakup. That's certainly what Tom McCluskie told me and others, and what Harland & Wolff's actions after the sinking seem to indicate.

I urge anyone interested in Titanic, or history in general, to read this book. In my career I've been fortunate to talk with men who walked on the moon, men who sailed U-boats in Hitler's navy, men who created Mission Control - and men who dive shipwrecks. And there's one thing I've learned: "history," even about a subject as familiar as Titanic, is a work in progress; there's always more to be learned - sometimes a lot more. Matsen's excellent book is a powerful reminder of that enduring truth.

The best way to ruin a good expedition is to publish a bad book, after producing a mediocre television program. The reality is that the author and his protagonists used the Titanic as a branding tactic for themselves, and this book is nothing more than a way to promote "The Further Adventures of Shadow Divers...." as it says in the subtitle.

I have to disagree with the review of Mr. DeNooyer, my colleague on the 2005 expedition. This book is not "thoroughly researched," and it could have been "historically important," but it is not. In fact, the book is riddled with inaccuracies.

The original purpose of the 2005 expedition was to explore a new section of the Titanic wreck site discovered on an earlier expedition. The "ribbons of steel" angle came in later when the television producers felt the need to follow the "Deep Sea Detectives" formula and prove or disprove a "grounding theory" mistakenly attributed to me in the television program, but which actually originated with Parks Stephenson and David Brown in a white paper they published in 2001. See [...]. The "ribbons of steel" are actually sections of the Titanic's hull plating, not seen on the first dive because the submersible took a different path to return to the new debris field. Due to the inherent difficulties of exploring 2.5 miles below the ocean's surface, particularly limitations on lighting and your field of view, if you travel 50 feet in either direction of the path you took on a previous dive, you will never see the same thing twice. After being used to hook the reader and disparage me, the "ribbons of steel" angle is abandoned in favor of the discussion of the "newly discovered" double bottom hull sections.

Unfortunately, as the author and his protagonists have always known, the 2005 expedition did not "discover" the large double bottom hull sections. These artifacts were well known to veterans of prior Titanic expeditions; they even appear on a map in the book "Titanic: Legacy of the World's Greatest Ocean Liner," by Susan Wels, Time-Life Books; 1st edition (1997) ISBN-10: 0783552610, on page 137. I had this book in my collection eight years before the 2005 expedition was ever planned, and I had seen these hull sections on my second Titanic dive in 2000. Anatoly Sagalevitch and I decided to send the subs to the location of the double bottom hull sections on the final dive day to appease the producers and save their show. Billy Lange was given credit for this decision in the book. More importantly, Roger Long and I warned the producers and protagonists after their final dive not to take credit for "discovering" the double bottom hull sections because they had been featured by the Discovery Channel on television and in Ms. Wels' book in the late 1990s. Mr. Matsen was advised of this when he was writing the book, and he was given contact information and other information so he could check his facts. His notes indicate that he never did so. Apparently, this information did not fit with the "further adventures" theme of his intended book, so the information was either discarded or ignored. Unfortunately, this lack of objectivity and emphasis on sensationalism infects the rest of the book, with predictable results.

The point is, if you are going to call yourself an "explorer," don't take credit for other people's work. If you are going to write a book that is supposed to be "thoroughly researched" and "historically important," consider all of the facts and explain them. And, most of all, listen to your mother. She probably told you not to build yourself up by tearing other people down and, if so, this was good advice that you should have followed.

The book is a disappointment. The expedition produced sufficient information to publish an interesting account of deep sea exploration not burdened by Titanic egos and the desire for self-promotion. If you want the real story behind the 2005 expedition, read the last chapter of Gary Gentile's book "Shipwreck Heresies," Bellerophon Bookworks (2009) ISBN-10: 188305639X. Otherwise, save your money.

Titanic. All one has to do is utter the name of the world's most infamous unsinkable ship and imagery, myth, and legend-sans James Cameron-pops into mind.

The world was mesmerized when Dr. Robert Ballard and his team located the wreckage in 1985. And not since Charles Pellegrino's 1990 classic, Her Name Titanic: The Untold Story of the Sinking and Finding of the Unsinkable Ship, has there been a great book about the Olympic-class ship. On the other hand, since Ballard et al., first glimpsed the rusting wreckage there had been nothing thing new to report. Until now. Get ready to unearth one of the greatest historical cover-ups of the twentieth century.

It's not clear how author Brad Matsen came to be involved with writing a completely absorbing narrative of the divers' adventures and findings. Regardless, Matsen's new book, Titanic's Last Secrets: The Further Adventures of Shadow Divers John Chatteron and Richie Kohler can take its place as the definitive answer to the world's most unanswerable question: Why did Titanic sink as quickly as she did?

In 2005, Deep Sea Detectives John Chatteron and Richie Kohler stacked their finances and reputations on the report of one man who claimed to have seen new evidence that the majestic ship's last hours were not at all what we had imagined and that it did not sink exactly as we have come to believe. David Concannon had seen "ribbons of steel that looked like they had been peeled from the ship" in Titan's debris field. He had no real proof, only what he had seen. Chatteron and Kohler took a plunge (no pun intended) in an effort to discover, once and for all, how and why Titanic sunk.

The book's subtitle is a little misleading. Chatteron and Kohler almost take a back seat to Titanic's mesmerizing personality. The book is divided into three sections: "Shipwreck," "Dreams," and "Secrets." From what Chatteron and Kohler discover, Martsen weaves the mystery effortlessly that results in an amazing work.

I'm dying to tell you what they learned, but I hate reviewers who spoil an ending. A little hint though: the biggest scene in the movie is wrong.

Armchair Interviews says: If the Titanic has always intrigued you, this is a must-read.

I'm just a reader who has a general interest in things technical, and diving and the Titanic; unlike several other reviewers here, I have no financial interest in any of this other than as a dissappointed reader (and purchaser!) of this book....

The first part of this book, relating the missteps and successes of a mission to find out something new about Titanic, is relatively interesting and definitely well told: it's a fun and engaging read. Unfortunately, while lots of space is devoted to the tale of the expedition, the new theory regarding the sinking is poorly explained, and there are no illustrations to help with conceptualizing the new theory. The two drawings of the newly imaged wreckage are interesting, but lack context and are barely discussed in the text; most importantly, the key attributes of the wreckage that lead to and support the new theory are not identified on the drawings. (In fact, key landmarks such as the all-important keel and bilge keels are not identified, either.) It's not clear where this wreckage originated on the ship; for that matter, this book is woefully short of plans/drawings of the Titanic and her wreckage.

The second part of the book, the historic re-telling, is downright annoying. This section is presented in narative form, explained in the notes as having been reconstructed from a large number of sources, with some liberty taken with the dialog. But many things presented as key facts (such as decisions about design changes and observations on sea trials) are only supported by, and fully derrived from, the uncorroborated recollections of a possibly bitter ex-employee of the shipbuilder. Other elements presented as facts (such as who made the decision as to number of life boats and the materials specifications) are contrary to sworn testimony, though in line with the recollections of the ex-employee. Further, there are unexplained inconsistencies, or at least changes through time: at some points, the owner of the shipbuilding firm has the head of White Star in his pocket, while at other points, the head of White Star is making the key decisions, decisions which would be counter to the interest of the shipbuilder. The relationship between these two men is key to the charges brought in this book, yet the change over time -- or even if there was a change -- is not addressed.

Lastly, this book just sort of ends without putting the new theory into any sort of context; most importantly, existing factual analysis (such as the behavior of Titanic's steel in cold water and the slag in her rivets) is completely ignored and not even mentioned. Very little space is allocated to discussing the implications of the new theory regarding loss of life in the disaster: there is a great deal of disagreement in the professional community over whether the core issue of the new theory contributed to greater loss of life, and the author completely ignores this disagreement and presents a very one-sided conclusion.

As I wrap up this review, something else occurs to me: in the early part of the mission, the team is steered wrong by someone they actually know, and know to have impeccable credentials. This person gave the team actionable information which was investigated and proved inaccurate. However, later in the mission, the team (and author) rely completely on the word of the ex-employee -- a person they do not have any prior relationship with -- and there is no indication that either the team or author took any effort to verify this person's information. Could the team have been steered wrong by a second person, a person who they didn't know, and who's information is unverifiable? Hmmmm.

Overall, this is a very dissappointing book: it's a quick read, definitely engaging, but built on a poor foundation with the key parts being devoid of sufficient support to label this non-fiction.

After reading this book, I will agree that it begins with an interesting premise - the shipbuilders made grave compromises in the building materials of the White Star Line ship that led to its destruction and accelerated its sinking upon its collision with the iceberg. Most presumptively, the book asserts Harland and Wolff conspired to cover up any tracks and made some deliberate structural changes to the Olympic and Britannic. It is another conspiracy theory presented using the information you already know to support new elements of the tale.

I have read and agree with the reviews of others who state that it is a quick and interesting read with a lack of strong evidence to support many of the findings. I was also incredibly troubled by the downplay of the historical role of Robert Ballard (perhaps in support of Billy Lange- the Ballard team member on watch in '85 and the one who spotted initial wreckage with Stu Harris - Lange was a contributor to this expedition and book) and the seemingly odd ways the expedition was plagued on the path to discovery - no David Concannon photos - limited time spent on Titanic - original film confiscated during the Britannic dive. The Concannon catalyst - a Philadelphia lawyer who believed he saw "ribbons of steel" on a previous Titanic dive and contacts Chatterton - is quickly unproven and dismissed. Concannon is portrayed as a conman, not an excited guy who possibly made a mistake. He doesn't even get a true thank you by the author after the fact.

If you want a truly "experty written account" as Publishers Weekly touts on the back cover, you would be best to read Wyn Craig Wade's "Titanic: End of A Dream" as Matsen suggests and obviously recounts in his support material. I would also recommend the classic recounting of the tale by Walter Lord's "A Night to Remember" and the "Night Lives On". As a Titanic enthusiast, I feel that John Chatterton and Richie Kohler were used primarily as a branding tactic. They are not part of the majority of this book and many of the "historical" bits that reflect the cover-up are heresay.

I was certainly hoping for more than I got in this book. The first 2/3 is as others have said, a script for a self-important, overly dramatic History Channel program. The "conspiracy" that they cite about the structure of the ship is just plain bad research. They take the fuzzy recollections of an ill, disgruntled former employee of the Harland and Wolff archives, who has no direct evidence himself, and without even a scrap of confirming ANYTHING, spin this into a master coverup.

Minor ship re-designs happened all the time during the Victorian and Edwardian eras within ship classes. For this theory to be correct, the authors would have us believe that somehow the designers (1) knew for sure how Titanic failed, (2) knew the root cause, and (3) magically came into possession of information about such fields as fracture mechanics, which was not devised until the 1950s.

Pass this book by. The people who rate this book highly seem to enjoy being fed superficial narratives and juicy tidbits about the details of the salvage voyages, but scratch the surface and the whole story falls apart.

But then, this is the crap that sells books these days. Too bad, really.

After the first chapter, I thought this story would be unsinkable. Two independent, self-financed adventurers achieve the extraordinary feat of not only discovering new Titanic wreckage, but rewriting the story of the wreck - what could be more compelling? The story initially moves along with the briskness and dramatic tension of a teleplay; perhaps this is not a coincidence, considering their previous exploits culminated in a documentary and television show. The narrative hits the ground running as the author recreates the experience of searching the wreck from within a claustrophobic submersible more than two miles beneath the ocean. Enough back-story about the controversy regarding the speed of the Titanic's sinking is given that the reader shares their excitement when they find evidence that the Titanic's bottom had basically fallen out. Amazingly, this observation seems to have been missed by every other previous explorer of the wreck. Then, inexplicably, the next 150 pages jump back in time to recreate the characters and events surrounding the building of the Titanic. While interesting and well-written, it completely halts the momentum of the story, which subsequently degenerates into a retrospective whistle-blowing regarding the construction of Titanic's hull. Not only did I find the evidence for this unconvincing, but following this approach detracted from what could otherwise have been an exciting, informative and inspiring example of archeological adventure.

An admittedly disgruntled former employee of Harland & Wolff, the ship's builder, is the sole source for the claim that there was awareness of the hull's weakness before the disaster. Primary supporting documentation for this appears nowhere in the book. They then claim to support their hypothesis by diving to the wreck of Titanic's younger sister ship, Britannic. Improvements in the construction of the latter's hull are interpreted as evidence of negligence in the construction of Titanic. The more likely explanation that it represented sincere effort to avoid repeating a tragic accident is never considered. Like so many recountings of historic tragedies, this one seems determined to find a conspiracy to blame. I would have much preferred to focus on the considerable present-day exploits of Chatterton and Kholer, whose characters and background are never fully revealed. Perhaps this is to encourage the reader to consult their previous book, Shadow Divers. If so, it is a lame marketing technique, just like trumping up a conspiracy theory when it's far too late to do any good. A good story, sold a little too hard. Still, four stars for a well-written update to this enduring saga.

Matsen, Brad. Titanic's Last Secrets

I made a fundamental mistake when I begin the book by not noting the full title, especially the part, "The Further Adventures of Shadow Divers..." As such, this book is fine. It is in tele-script format; it reads so much like the script of the 2006 and 2007 History Channel episodes based around the title, Titanic's Final Moments that I suspect that we might find Matsen in the credits for these releases. I was fine with this and the attractive narrative of the protagonists. While this is "counter-history (the "what IF" retelling), it provides very nice imagery of the times surrounding the disaster. However, these components are imagination and as such do not sell the proverbial soap suds. It is packaged and is marketed as the "Last Secrets." Essentially, they accomplish this by claiming they have discovered that Titanic suddenly, and to the crew's surprise, broke and sank quickly. They go on to explain the company cover up and back it with a subsequent dive to Britannic to prove it. The book falls on its face because

1) they have nothing new except some forensic data, especially the location of keel pieces from the breakup. Critical to their thesis is their estimate the hull only sank to an 11 degree down angle. While this is acceptable it is inconsequential;

2) taken together all the parts of their findings are the last secrets, they are not. This leaves the work open to some of the bitter complaints by Butler and others that this book was just another way of milking money out of the story. Unfortunately it does also look to me to be little more than hyperbole for the purpose of paying for the Chatterton and Kohler expedition. (There is something to be said for the effort as it did pay for the expedition and a visit to Britannic so I envy that very much)

I read the resources section carefully and do find the research was extensive. I am troubled that Matsen relied on works by David K. Brown for substantial parts of his narrative. Brown's Titanic conclusions have been thoroughly criticized and his conclusions have been universally dismissed; their use in the 1912 narratives diminishes the credibility of these narratives. Personally I find them much closer to reasonable than Butler decries. However they must be tempered with a grain of salt because they are the story and they do use resource material which is not considered valid within the Titanic community.

We know a great deal about the wreck of the Titanic, much of it is current. It would have been prudent for Matsen to look past the story line to current discoveries and interpretation of the data. We need only look at facts long evident, such as that the ship broke up on the surface, and the owners and government(s) covered it up, to see it is not new information. Their assertion that the angle of the hull at the breakup is significant can easily be shown to be irrelevant. It is true, conventional wisdom and survivor descriptions placed it as higher; equally true is that it likely did break at around 11 degrees from previous forensic evidence. What the author fails to take into account is the timeline (see Titanic Chronology at www.titanic-nautical.com./RMS-Titanic-Chronology.php). The key point is that the break up did not occur--under any scenario--until approximately the same time the lights failed. Remember the lights were on through the release of the Marconi operators and though they blinked a couple of times, they failed throughout the ship at exactly the same time between 0205 and 0217. A breakup starting before then would have immediately caused power outage to the forward portion that was still afloat (like the Marconi room) and would have been noticed. Matsen fails to take into account that had the hull remained intact the engine room would have flooded near this time anyway. Again this would have been marked by the lights going out. Titanic had no chance to stay afloat longer than it did anyway: Even if the hull remained intact, it is absolutely inconceivable that the hull would have filled at any slower rate (look at how far it sank in 2 hrs before the break); I can image, at most, only 30 minutes longer. This is consistent with any angle of sinking. The evidence indicates that if you disregard any angle of descent discussion (11 degrees to 40 degrees) there were few impediments to the water by 0200. Remember the water had overflowed the well deck by 0130 and this increased the hole in the hull to 600 sq. ft as the water poured in through the hatches of cargo hold 2. The last reasonable impediment was the bulkhead between fireroom 6 and 5 which collapsed (see the testimony of Leading Stoker Frederick Barrett) before 0130. This loss of this buoyancy allowed the well deck to flood and the bulkheads at fireroom 4 and 3 were quickly overflowed, or collapsed, rather quickly after that. We can never know if any other bulkhead held until 0200. But it is most likely there was at least 20,000 tons of water and nothing but the bulkhead at fireroom 1--immediately in front of the cavernous engine room at that time.

Matsen states that "..The ship would have remained afloat for some time longer if the hull had not broken. If Titanic had lasted only a few minutes more, it could have meant life for people who would have had time to cobble together a life raft of deck chairs." Aside from the fact that it would take a considerable amount of time to cobble together enough chairs to make a raft large enough to support even one human, none the less more, there is not much likelihood of survival without the boats coming back. I believe there were only two or three whom survived on wreckage to be picked up 30 or so minutes later. The key here is the 30 more minutes--ten minutes longer than the actual best estimate of when everyone was in the water. I can not imagine how 10 extra minutes in the cold and in the dark would have prolonged any lives.

Another troubling aspect of the thesis is how the crew reacted. Madsen shows numerous examples of how they expected to have longer. Somehow this equates to being able to save more lives. Unfortunately it does not. The ship was going to sink by 0230 irregardless. They were still pulling boats to the davits when it sank under them. Even if they had 32 boats, the nature of Welin Davits required they be cranked by hand out and back--a hand screw with very fine threading--a laborious process. They would have had to crank out, fill, launch, crank in, crank back, hook up, and crank out while facing cold, panic, and an increasingly tilting deck. Remember the whole episode was only about 160 minutes long. They were lucky to get 18 off. Add the fact they did no drills and only 40% were from Olympic and most had no experience with the Welin davit further complicates matters. It says a lot for the professional sailors that they got the 18 off. It does nothing to belay Matsen's thesis the crew could have moved faster. It is also worth pointing out the crew had no experience with Olympic class ship capabilities in a collision of this magnitude. The only thing they had to go off was the collision of Olympic and HMS Hawke. However, the Hawke weighed 6000 tons, the iceberg, at least 100000 tons (McCarty, 2008). Clearly the outcomes were very different. They could not help but not understand their situation and constraints. They thus acted based on their experience and it did cost some 300 lives. Again 90 minutes would have made a difference, not the 10ish minutes they could have expected from an intact hull.

The keel section discoveries are very forensically relevant but they are not epochal. I am a librarian and not an engineer, but no scenario I can visualize supports the conclusion the hull flexed to a pure V from the inverted V position. The role of the keel box is under examined by Matsen. The keel box is the strongest point on a ship. The hull can break down to the keel but the only way it could bend back upward is for there to be a massive amount of air in the bow. 4th Officer Boxhall described the air escaping from the Fore Peak Tank at 1200. My apologies to Jack Thayer whom described this scenario (Skidmore, 1912), it is far more likely the pieces the Chatterton & Kohler expedition found were either from in front of, or behind, the break and were hanging and twisting in the current as the hull section sank. Their twisting separated them and account for the different damage profiles the book attributed to surface damage.

The expedition has provided significant evidence which fills in a number of gaps in our understanding of the break up and foundering of RMS Titanic. The keel section discoveries are very forensically relevant. It is my hope the data will be made available to the Titanic community to better interpret. My fear is it is being held hostage like the findings from Cussler's Carpathia expedition. If so, we are subjected to imprecise works such as this book.

Kerry Skidmore,

Cheyenne, Wyoming

There is a feeling that this book was thrown together. The Shadow Divers sank big bucks into a trip to Titanic because a lawyer they hardly even knew mentioned seeing "ribbons of steel" when he had been to the site sometime earlier. (What the "ribbons of steel" theory - if such ribbons had been discovered - would have meant to the Titanic story is never fully explained.) Anyway, no "ribbons of steel" are found - so one gets the feeling that the Shadow Divers are hard pressed to come up with something new about Titanic to recoup their staggering financial investments. Enter Brad Matsen, author of this book that bounces from present to past and back to the present with head-dizzying speed. The trip in time describing the sinking of the Ship of Dreams seems more like ballast than book; and if you're going to take us back to that fateful night, surely a brief word about Captain Lord and the Californian would have been in order, no? Anyway, I won't give away any of the very unproven, unconvincing-for-several-reasons "last secrets" here; suffice it to say the new reason for the ship's rapid sinking is not explained in any convincing depth. And instead of all of the needless photos of the Shadow Divers and their assistants all looking pensive and philosophic and determined to rip the mask off the Lone Ranger, a few illustrations depicting the book's main premise of how Titanic actually sank would have been much preferred.

On the back of the paperback edition of the book it says "If the ship had remained afloat for just two hours longer, more than two thousand people would have survived on the infamous night in 1912." Really? The actual death toll was a little more than 1,500. Did the book jacket writer even read the book he or she is commenting upon? I doubt it. And why would two more hours have mattered: after the ship disappeared from the surface of the Atlantic, the freezing, floating survivors screamed to the mostly unfilled lifeboats (which had a capacity for 60 and one was holding only 10 or so people)...anyway, for a half hour or more the people in the water were screaming and crying for the lifeboats to come back and help them, pleading for their return. Well, those in the lifeboats just deafened themselves to the cries of their loved ones lest they themselves be capsized. In short, to heap the death of the 1,500 plus on the hubris and greed of the the shipbuiders alone is not enough. Not near enough. Just as this book is not near enough in its aim to reveal any new truth about Titanic. Deceptive and disappointing.

Good information. Really explains the sinking. However, the book keeps jumping from the the past to the present. Gets confusing. Should have been presented chronologically. And the filler - stuff you already knew or didn't need to know - takes up too much of the book, which seems to be dis-jointed at times. Narrative doesn't really flow, seems to be missing parts here and there.