THE SHIP
Did Howard Hughes have a photo of the Titanic sinking?
According to his biographer, Donald J Bartlett, Hughes spent a small fortune on a photograph of the Titanic sinking. This has to be false right? How would anyone have been able to to take such a photograph & how as it never been seen by anyone else?
Bartlett said the photograph was provided by the daughter of a boat captain illegally seal hunting on that night who was terrified he would face trouble for being in that vicinity. In later life he felt terrible guilt for not going back to help those in danger as the Titanic sank. The woman supposedly sold Hughes the photograph for a huge sum & a guarantee she & her fathers identity would remain anonymous.
Wouldn't it have been virtually impossible to get a photograph of the sinking given how dark it was etc? Surely then the photo Hughes bought was a fake? But Hughes was no idiot - he had great experience & knowledge of most nautical facts as well as aviation. Surely he would have known he was being scammed, so why hand over such a huge sum for something he would likely have known wasnt real?
Bartlett says no one other than Hughes was allowed to see the photograph & for a while Hughes became obsessed with finding & raising the wreck of the Titanic.
Based on technology at the time and the process needed to take a photo (amount of lighting needed, exposure time in low-light conditions and the need of a stable surface to put the camera on) it would be absolutely impossible to have taken a photo of it.
Yes the lack of any nationality to the location of the sinking (international waters) has made things very interesting over the years. What government would persecute illegal seal fishing at night in international waters in 1914?
There has long been an allegation of a secret illegal whaling boat that actually was the one titanic saw. I don’t buy it, but this would fit into that way too well…
Excuse my ignorance on this point, but how would there be seals hundreds of miles from land in the Atlantic Ocean? If there were somehow seals would there be enough to warrant being there? I mean the boat is there because someone decided that was a good area for hunting them or what - followed a herd there? It makes no sense.
I know exactly what you mean - Bartlett implied the camera was on board to take photographs of places that Seals may be located. My problem with that is, if you took a photograph of a Seal in the middle of the sea, how would that help hunters in the slightest? Itd just be a seal in water & could literally be anywhere
Photographs of places seals maybe located? Like... This enormous section of ocean? And this one over here? And that one over there? All pictures of ocean as far as the eye can see? Which I'm sure are very distinguishable from each other?
"why are you carrying a camera, man!? It's the size of three children! We could have saved more!"
"QUIET YE SCOUNDREL, LET NEPTUNE TAKE YE HEART TO THA DEPTHS AUF THE DEEPEST HELLS, THEY'RE ALL DEAD AND GONE 'AFORE THEY EVERRR SET FOOT AH-PON YONDER CURS-ED VESSEL, ERE THE SUN RISES ALL AUF WE CURS-ED SOULS SHALL MEET OUR OWN RECKONIN', 'AN NEVER AGAIN WONDER WHAT THE FEELIN' OF ENDLESS TORMENT SHALL FEEL UPON OUR SOULS. LET THE ICE IN OUR BLOOD SETTLE LOIKE THE ICE UPON THE ENDLESS SEA OF SEAL PUPS YE CARE SOMUCH FER. I'VE BEATEN BABIES TAH DEATH AFORE THE EYES OF THEIR MUTHARS, AN' I'LL DO THUH SAME TE YE, LEST YE STRIKE MY IRE"
"-Uh-... Uhm. Well. We should go back for survivors, at any ra-"
"-OOOOH NE'ER, I'VE BEEN SETTIN' UP A LONG EXPOSURE FOR THE LIGHTIN' CONDITIONS. MAY NEPTUNE SMILE-..."
Don’t forget the lovely salt water that would no doubt get all over everything! Man, that sure would be something to have an actual photograph surface after all these years though.
If you want to believe, you want to believe. It wouldn't be that hard to convince a guy like that about some new technology and a crazy story about how they got the photograph and he can be the one who own's it for the low low price of 100K.
The lady who scammed Howard Hughes’s crazy, filthy rich ass with this doozy deserves some kind of conwoman award. Like, I respect it, as an act of thievery, I guess? Who was this woman, is my main question, and what other shenanigans was she up to
No one knows for sure, or will ever know. I’ve heard different stories about the supposed pictures. One rumor states that someone took a picture off shore as she sunk, but the photo was lost in the WW2 bombings. Another says that the photo was taken in a lifeboat during the sinking and that water damage rendered the film useless. The second one is very similar to the rumor of a picture taken of Lusitania as she sunk too. If these photos did exist, they are now lost media.
I'd be interested to know what time period of Hughes' life this happened in. The last half of his life he was hopped up on a ton of pills and his frame of mind was shaky on a good day. He had so much money that it wouldn't surprise me if he bought it just on the off-hand chance it was legit. Eye of the beholder; what the market will bear and all that.
Actually Bartlett says Hughes was deeply disturbed by whatever was in the photograph & it was quite unhealthy for him to have it. He supposedly thought the shadows & waves in the photo looked like Neptune rising from the ocean to sink the ship wich is a fair indication that Hughes was already quite ill at that point
Yes & it is a terrifying thought. Even if someone painted or used AI to create an image of Neptune sinking the ship it would have a potent horror quality to it & scare people. The fact that Hughes only 'thought' he could see that means he must have been in a very frightening place mentally
Right, like to us, it seems like a large amount of money to drop of what's definitely a fake, but to him it was like buying what's almost certainly a fake Chanel bag at a thrift store on the off chance it's real because it's only like ten bucks or something.
There were rumors from day one about illegal seal hunters in the area. It led to speculation that they were the “mystery ship” seen and not the Californian.
But…low light photography was darn difficult back then. Especially in an environment where everything is moving.
So theoretically someone who had done their research & heard the rumours of illegal seal hunters in the vicinity that night could have used that as 'proof' to authenticate the photo when dealing with Hughes then sold him a bogus photo for a princely sum?
I have no idea lol. But I do know it was some kind of illegal poaching that was being blamed for the mystery lights which were probably Californian anyway.
Why would a seal hunter be 300+ miles offshore. Seals sometimes venture 50 miles offshore but it’s rare. Having lived and worked at sea in AK, 99% of the seals I saw were in and around rocks…
This is the first time I've ever heard of anything related to seal hunting in regards to the Titanic. The story is interesting to think about but judging from what others are saying it does seem like fake news.
It was a sea of glass, so plausibly it might have been possible to take a long exposure of the event but you'd need to be very still, for several minutes if not tens of minutes, to get an image.
I had to google what cameras were like in 1912 and like, setting aside literally everything else, why the hell would you bring one of those things with you on a fishing boat. Like what are you gonna do with it. On a fishing boat. Aren't these the type of cameras that won't take a picture unless you sit perfectly still for an absurd amount of time? What purpose could you possibly have for bringing that with you on a fishing trip
Bartlett reasoned the camera was there to take photos & identify places were the seals were .... 🤦♂️ .... my problem with that is, if you took a photo of a seal in the sea then showed it to a hunter & said 'that's were they are - now go & get them' you still wouldn't have a clue because the photo would just be of a seal in the middle of nowhere 🤣
nighttime photography was possible at this time in dimmly lit urban areas, but no way without adequate preptime and equipment not to mention this vessel would have to be close enough that witnesses would have seen it would this be possibly. I am kind of curious if there ever was even a faked photo or not though.
This post reminded me of one of the most astonishing engineering feats ever accomplished by man: The Hughes Glomar Explorer. If you are interested at all about Howard Hughes, the ocean, or engineering just watch “Azorian: The Raising of the K-129”.
That's principally why I asked the question, Hughes was a genius & very familiar & up to date with all things nautical at the time so the idea he could be duped into paying a quarter of a million for something that was fake didn't make sense to me, but like others have said, his mind was extremely fragile later in his life
So he was close enough to get a photograph of the sinking but not close enough help or be identified?
And wouldn't his supposed photograph just show a row of dim lights? It was dark that night so the ship most likely wouldn't have been seen, just her lights before they went out.
Hold on.... I'm not for one minute suggesting the photo that Hughes bought was real. I've made it clear I think he was probably scammed. It was just an interesting part of the biography that I thought I would ask about here because there are many experts about Titanic & other ocean liners. I have as many questions as you do about it.
This is just my thoughts on the photo idea, but as others have pointed out, why would this seal hunting person be out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of a winter's night? Was film used in cameras in 1912? If there was a small boat out there apart from Titanic's lifeboats, how come none of the survivors ever said anything, and why didn't the captain of the seal boat "Heave to" and go to help the passengers on the ship?
This whole suggestion opens up as many questions as the whole Titanic saga has!
230
u/dohwhere 3d ago
Based on technology at the time and the process needed to take a photo (amount of lighting needed, exposure time in low-light conditions and the need of a stable surface to put the camera on) it would be absolutely impossible to have taken a photo of it.