Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The mystery of the Mary Celeste still endures 150 years on


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, UM-Bot said:

Nobody knows what became of the crew of the infamous ghost ship which was found adrift and deserted in 1872.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/362919/the-mystery-of-the-mary-celeste-still-endures-150-years-on

The source of this thread is actually accurate a very plausible scientific explanation has been made and excepted by those who choose not to continue perpetuating a mystery that really isn’t that mystery and it was presented May 20, of 2006, 

Attention … focused on the highly volatile cargo. It seemed highly possible that the leaking alcohol caught light, sending Captain Briggs into a panic and prompting the dreaded cry: 'Abandon ship!' It was a plausible explanation but has always been discounted because there was no sign of fire, or explosion. A blast of sufficient magnitude to persuade an experienced captain to take the last resort of abandoning ship would surely have left at least a few scorch marks on the wooden barrels, or in the hold.

Now, however, 21st century scientific techniques have been used to finally solve the 19th century mystery. An experiment, conducted by a scientist at UCL for a Channel 5 documentary which will be screened next week, shows that an explosion may indeed be the key to the fate of Captain Briggs, his family and crew.

Dr Andrea Sella [UCL Chemistry] built a replica of the hold of the Mary Celeste.

Using butane gas, he simulated an explosion caused by alcohol leaking from the ship's cargo.

Instead of wooden barrels, he used cubes of paper. Setting light to the gas caused a huge blast, which sent a ball of flame upwards. Surely the paper cubes would be burned or blackened or the replica hold damaged.

Remarkably, neither happened.

What we created was a pressure-wave type of explosion," says Dr Sella. "There was a spectacular wave of flame but, behind it, was relatively cool air. No soot was left behind and there was no burning or scorching. 

"Given all the facts we have, this replicates conditions on board the Mary Celeste. The explosion would have been enough to blow open the hatches and would have been completely terrifying for everyone on board.

"It is the most compelling explanation," says Dr Sella. "Of all those suggested, it fits the facts best and explains why they were so keen to get off the ship."

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2006/may/solved-mystery-mary-celeste

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

The source of this thread is actually accurate a very plausible scientific explanation has been made and excepted by those who choose not to continue perpetuating a mystery that really isn’t that mystery and it was presented May 20, of 2006, 

Attention … focused on the highly volatile cargo. It seemed highly possible that the leaking alcohol caught light, sending Captain Briggs into a panic and prompting the dreaded cry: 'Abandon ship!' It was a plausible explanation but has always been discounted because there was no sign of fire, or explosion. A blast of sufficient magnitude to persuade an experienced captain to take the last resort of abandoning ship would surely have left at least a few scorch marks on the wooden barrels, or in the hold.

Now, however, 21st century scientific techniques have been used to finally solve the 19th century mystery. An experiment, conducted by a scientist at UCL for a Channel 5 documentary which will be screened next week, shows that an explosion may indeed be the key to the fate of Captain Briggs, his family and crew.

Dr Andrea Sella [UCL Chemistry] built a replica of the hold of the Mary Celeste.

Using butane gas, he simulated an explosion caused by alcohol leaking from the ship's cargo.

Instead of wooden barrels, he used cubes of paper. Setting light to the gas caused a huge blast, which sent a ball of flame upwards. Surely the paper cubes would be burned or blackened or the replica hold damaged.

Remarkably, neither happened.

What we created was a pressure-wave type of explosion," says Dr Sella. "There was a spectacular wave of flame but, behind it, was relatively cool air. No soot was left behind and there was no burning or scorching. 

"Given all the facts we have, this replicates conditions on board the Mary Celeste. The explosion would have been enough to blow open the hatches and would have been completely terrifying for everyone on board.

"It is the most compelling explanation," says Dr Sella. "Of all those suggested, it fits the facts best and explains why they were so keen to get off the ship."

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2006/may/solved-mystery-mary-celeste

 

Unbelievable ,  there have been many theories and articles about this vessel , but I don't agree with this version because of lack of evidence ref an explosion , my view is that the crew mutinied and got off the vessel ,taking the Captain with them as a hostage , but no one survived possibly because they were caught in a severe storm (which can brew up within a few hours in the Atlantic ,I . know because  I have experienced these terrifiying storms ) and the boat(s) were sunk , leaving no survivors ,meanwhile the ship  had sailed away from the storm . 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They all went for a swim, but the boat swam faster.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ell said:

I have read the Wikipedia lemma.

 

I agree with Oliver Deveau's hypothesis of bad weather / a waterspout.

Wikipedia is that even source of inf:Dormation 

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Wikipedia is that ever source of inf:Dormation 

I quote Wikipedia a lot in my books.

 

If you notice an inaccuracy in the Mary Celeste lemma of Wikipedia, please let me know.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ell said:

I quote Wikipedia a lot in my books.

 

If you notice an inaccuracy in the Mary Celeste lemma of Wikipedia, please let me know.

Over all its not considered an accurate source, because much of what’s add there isn’t verified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Wikipedia is that even source of inf:Dormation 

It can be, as long as you check papers and other references on a wikipage.

Nowadays these wikipages are maintained by editors who delete anything that's nonsense.

In former days, however, any nutcase could create a wikipage.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Over all its not considered an accurate source, because much of what’s add there isn’t verified.

Nobody has ever told me that my quotes contain inaccuracies. (Probably because no-one buys nor reads my books.)

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ell said:

I quote Wikipedia a lot in my books.

 

If you notice an inaccuracy in the Mary Celeste lemma of Wikipedia, please let me know.

Hi Ell.  Grateful to learn what books you are the author of.

 

Thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vox said:

Hi Ell.  Grateful to learn what books you are the author of.

Thanks.

Sorry. I operate under a pseudonym here.

There are millions of books out there. Just buy and read the ones you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ell said:

Nobody has ever told me that my quotes contain inaccuracies. (Probably because no-one buys nor reads my books.)

I certainly didn’t know you were an author, that’s actually a shame because I suspect no one here will ever know what you have written. Because, sadly  without knowing who you are or the titles of your work it’s impossible to compliment you for what you have accomplished. So, I believe in this topic the inaccuracies in your comments in thread will stand!:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vox said:

Hi Ell.  Grateful to learn what books you are the author of.

 

Thanks.

I would also certainly also like to know myself.:yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Abramelin said:

It can be, as long as you check papers and other references on a wikipage.

Nowadays these wikipages are maintained by editors who delete anything that's nonsense.

In former days, however, any nutcase could create a wikipage.

I wasn’t aware that ever changed, thank you for the information! However, I still prefer to get information as close as possible directly from the horses mouth or from historical, scientific and medical sources in the form of except papers and journals. I don’t mine doing the extra work at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, spud the mackem said:

Unbelievable ,  there have been many theories and articles about this vessel , but I don't agree with this version because of lack of evidence ref an explosion , my view is that the crew mutinied and got off the vessel ,taking the Captain with them as a hostage , but no one survived possibly because they were caught in a severe storm (which can brew up within a few hours in the Atlantic ,I . know because  I have experienced these terrifiying storms ) and the boat(s) were sunk , leaving no survivors ,meanwhile the ship  had sailed away from the storm . 

Hey Spud, that’s cool but until another source offers something other speculation I will stand by comments in post 4. To my knowledge Dr Andrea Sella [UCL Chemistry] is the only one who has offered an explanation based upon a scientific hypothesis that after tested actually has become the only theory that’s been offed which is plausible.:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

The sails were partly set and in a poor condition, some missing altogether, and much of the rigging was damaged, with ropes hanging loosely over the sides. The main hatch cover was secure, but the fore and lazarette hatches were open, their covers beside them on the deck. The ship's single lifeboat was a small yawl that had apparently been stowed across the main hatch, but it was missing, while the binnacle housing the ship's compass had shifted from its place and its glass cover was broken.[47] There was about 3.5 feet (1.1 m) of water in the hold, a significant but not alarming amount for a ship of this size.[48] A makeshift sounding rod (a device for measuring the amount of water in the hold) was found abandoned on the deck. ...

Deveau saw that the cabin interiors were wet and untidy from water that had entered through doorways and skylights, but were otherwise in reasonable order. He found personal items scattered about Briggs' cabin, including a sheathed sword under the bed, but most of the ship's papers were missing along with the captain's navigational instruments. Galley equipment was neatly stowed away; there was no food prepared or under preparation, but there were ample provisions in the stores. There were no obvious signs of fire or violence; the evidence indicated an orderly departure from the ship by means of the missing lifeboat. ...

Deveau ventured an explanation based on the sounding rod found on deck. He suggested that Briggs abandoned ship after a false sounding, because of a malfunction of the pumps or other mishap, which gave a false impression that the vessel was taking on water rapidly.[85] A severe waterspout strike before the abandonment could explain the amount of water in the ship and the ragged state of her rigging and sails. The low barometric pressure generated by the spout could have driven water from the bilges up into the pumps, leading the crew to assume that the ship had taken on more water than she had and was in danger of sinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Celeste

 

I do not see how an alcohol explosion could cause nor explain the damage. Sella's hypothesis is merely another speculation.

Deveau's hypothesis in contrast concurs with the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ell said:

I do not see how an alcohol explosion could cause nor explain the damage. Sella's hypothesis is merely another speculation.

Deveau's hypothesis in contrast concurs with the facts.

That’s nit surprising at it appear you have concept of the scientific process used or the chemistry that was involved in the demonstration. So, go that you don’t see how a ship full of wooden barrels of alcohol ( Wooden Barrels that will naturally release gas ) then once the hull is full of said fumes will ignite with the smallest of a spark of even a static discharge from the barrels wood rubbing against each other. So, please follow your hypothesis and I will stick to a theory since the tests have proven it can without leaving burns or any damage only the ships hatches where blown open like they were found to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there no possibility of piracy for whatever reason? Has someone looked.at the captains history and life? 

I mean what happens to Marie Celeste could also be linked to the missing Malayesia flight... and who knows reasons can be almost identical. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

only the ships hatches where blown open like they were found to be. 

What evidence is there that those hatches were blown open?

Why was the main hatch not blown open?

How does such an explosion cause there to be three feet of water in the hold? Was all the alcohol in that explosion turned into (sea?) water?

What about the water in the cabins? Also caused by the explosion in the hold?

What about the damage to the rigging? Also caused by the explosion in the hold?

Why were most of the sails furled? Because the crew expected an explosion in the hold?

 

There is no proof whatsoever for an alcohol explosion.

Edited by Ell
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

The source of this thread is actually accurate a very plausible scientific explanation has been made and excepted by those who choose not to continue perpetuating a mystery that really isn’t that mystery and it was presented May 20, of 2006, 

Attention … focused on the highly volatile cargo. It seemed highly possible that the leaking alcohol caught light, sending Captain Briggs into a panic and prompting the dreaded cry: 'Abandon ship!' It was a plausible explanation but has always been discounted because there was no sign of fire, or explosion. A blast of sufficient magnitude to persuade an experienced captain to take the last resort of abandoning ship would surely have left at least a few scorch marks on the wooden barrels, or in the hold.

Now, however, 21st century scientific techniques have been used to finally solve the 19th century mystery. An experiment, conducted by a scientist at UCL for a Channel 5 documentary which will be screened next week, shows that an explosion may indeed be the key to the fate of Captain Briggs, his family and crew.

Dr Andrea Sella [UCL Chemistry] built a replica of the hold of the Mary Celeste.

Using butane gas, he simulated an explosion caused by alcohol leaking from the ship's cargo.

Instead of wooden barrels, he used cubes of paper. Setting light to the gas caused a huge blast, which sent a ball of flame upwards. Surely the paper cubes would be burned or blackened or the replica hold damaged.

Remarkably, neither happened.

What we created was a pressure-wave type of explosion," says Dr Sella. "There was a spectacular wave of flame but, behind it, was relatively cool air. No soot was left behind and there was no burning or scorching. 

"Given all the facts we have, this replicates conditions on board the Mary Celeste. The explosion would have been enough to blow open the hatches and would have been completely terrifying for everyone on board.

"It is the most compelling explanation," says Dr Sella. "Of all those suggested, it fits the facts best and explains why they were so keen to get off the ship."

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2006/may/solved-mystery-mary-celeste

 

See reference 92 on this Wikipage:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Celeste

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

See reference 92 on this Wikipage:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Celeste

Thanks for the information and that’s another reason I chose to find my own source of information which is the only explanation that has been scientifically investigated by building a replica and testing scenarios. I really get tired of people offering opinions with no sources to back them up, I will not discuss or argue someone’s opinion it’s the most ignorant and foolish thing anyone can do!

Here is my source Solved: The Mystery of the Mary Celeste: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2006/may/solved-mystery-mary-celeste and I am sticking with it until a source proves me wrong!:tu:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ell said:

What evidence is there that those hatches were blown open?

Why was the main hatch not blown open?

How does such an explosion cause there to be three feet of water in the hold? Was all the alcohol in that explosion turned into (sea?) water?

What about the water in the cabins? Also caused by the explosion in the hold?

What about the damage to the rigging? Also caused by the explosion in the hold?

Why were most of the sails furled? Because the crew expected an explosion in the hold?

 

There is no proof whatsoever for an alcohol explosion.

An alcohol explosion is a good explanation and has been studied to show that it COULD have been the missing info.   But I doubt we will ever know for sure.  I would think that if the crew took a lifeboat, they would tie a rope to the ship and just stay close to the big ship.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.