You have 0 bookmarked item(s)
Viewing Topic "skeletons in Monitor"
  Topic Description
Posted by: Mr history 2 I heard on the news today that skeltons were found in the Monitor wreck and buried at Arlington cementery. I have heard of skeletons being recovered from other shipwrecks too. I have one wuestion,if skeletons were found in the wreck of the Monitor,which sank in 1862,how come they claim there are none at the Titanic,which sank in 1912. they say there are none,but I think skeletons are deep in the ship. oh,and just to wrap up the idenity scandal,I am not Tipu Sultan. I repeat this for the last time,I AM NOT TIPU SULTAN AND I DON'T WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF BEING HIM ONE MORE TIME OR I WILL BLOW MY CASKET! the only times I came on the website was to stick up for him. about Bang Rajan,in addition to Wikipedia,I got info from about the battle. I do not think it deserves it's own book,but the Burmese-Siamese wars do. I also made my name strech out more because I do not like it being thrown all together in mumbo jumbo. manybe I will leave the website forever,not to come back as anybody,which I did not in the first place,but hey,maybe I will,because I give Americans a bad name!!!
Posted on: 11/03/2013 20:49:00

6 Item(s)     Sort:  Newest Oldest

per page
Posted by: kuvaszsleepybear
Total Posts: 297
Joined Date: Wednesday, 7 August 2013
It's GASKET not Casket, ROTFLMAO.
Posted on: 11/03/2013 22:52:00
Posted by: Equaliser
Total Posts: 43
Joined Date: Friday, 24 February 2012
SleepyBear - I've had a few glasses of whisky and your post made me laugh out loud. Thankyou my friend. :)
Posted on: 12/03/2013 01:25:00
Posted by: Mark24
Total Posts:
Joined Date: Friday, 28 January 2022
As regards bodies,i can only refer to Robert Ballards book Discovery of the Titanic. he doesn;t dwell too much on the matter,but states he always thought finding them "unlikely".He reckons that soft tissue would be eaten first by bottom feeding fish and crustaceans,then the skeletons would go.There is picture in the book of a pair work boots on the sea bed laid out in the manner that they had been worn by a now dissapeared corpse. I guess it must be depth related than age because as i recall skeletons were found on the Mary Rose?
Posted on: 12/03/2013 08:45:00
Posted by: AdamC
Total Posts: 286
Joined Date: Thursday, 22 January 2009
A grizzly question but Mark24 is quite right. It’s all to do with the depth of the water, the chemical composition of the water and the relevant flora and fauna found around the wreck. The Titanic lies over in over 12,000ft of water whereas the Monitor was only in 230ft of water (slight difference there I think you’ll agree!!! Lol!). Likewise the already mentioned Mary Rose was only at a depth of a mere 36ft. I know that human remains have also been observed with the wreck of the Lusitania. As this sank only three years after the Titanic it can be considered contemporary as far has decay and erosion are concerned but again it lies in much shallower water at only approximately 300ft.
Posted on: 12/03/2013 12:44:00
Posted by: DAZ REICH
Total Posts: 69
Joined Date: Monday, 25 February 2013
You have to remember the crushing forces at the deep depth that the Titanic is at as well.
Posted on: 12/03/2013 13:52:00
Posted by: Thenadiert1815
Total Posts: 5
Joined Date: Saturday, 6 April 2013
The Depth affects there being corpses at the Titanic. But I agree with you mrhistory,many people were trapped inside the sinking ship and there may still be bones deep inside.
Posted on: 08/04/2013 03:53:00

6 Item(s)     Sort:  Newest Oldest

per page

Who is online

User(s) browsing this topic: 1. 0 logged-in customer(s) and 1 guest(s) (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)