Anyone know the latitude and longitude of the Titanic? It’s needed to settle a disagreement regarding various distances from shore points… Of course, with my luck, we’ll both be right!
Thanks,
- Jinx
41°43’35" N, 49°56’54" W
41°43’35" N, 49°56’54" W
41°43’57" N, 49°56’49" W
You can make the degree symbol with ALT 0176
These coordinates don’t make sense! For reference, there is a sign in Maine when you cross the 45° latitude. And, Boston is about 42°. Yet, the Titanic sank off the coast of Newfoundland, didn’t it? Maybe Bob Ballard is protecting his bounty? - Jinx
Here’s a small map that shows you where it sank. t’s miles from everywhere but nearest to Newfoundland.
JJMM, I am curious to see the map…did you forget to include the link in your post? Thanks, Jinx
There is a map in the link posted by Reeder, above
Why was the location kept secret for so long when there are only a few submersibles like Alvin that can go that deep?
Because the potential profit on hawking souvenirs off the wreck would probably have been enough to garner backing for someone to buy (or build) such a submersible and loot the ship.
In fact, such a group was actually formed, although they seem to have run into legal troubles of their own.
If the corrdinates offered above are correct, then it must be REALLY true that:
When they say the Titanic sank off the coast of Newfoundland, they mean way, way, way off the coast of Newfoundland! In fact, why even mention Newfoundland at all? Was it not scare the ignorant public? Where was Uncle Cecil back then? Perhaps Newfoundland sounded so far off as to not to scare the general public…as it was not yet a province of Canada, even!
Do we really find icebergs so far south? …Boston is 42° N
- Jinx
Can’t our nuclear subs go that deep? Not the US Navy is into bounty hunting (except in the Mid-East, LoL), but who can you trust these days, right? - Jinx
Jinx, your tone suggests you might have lost that bet 
No. At least if they can, nobody is talking! 
Why say it’s off the coast of Newfoundland? Well, if you look at the map linked it does appear to be the closest landmass by a few hundred miles or so… thats probably why.