| Author |
Message |
    
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 477
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 5:03 am: | 
|
>>Water obscured much of what was happening so that some people really did not see the breakup at all...That would make some sense, but that may not easily be reconciled with the 13 mentioned who claimed they did see something. I would suggest that enough happened above on the surface so they could see or at least infer what had just gone down.<<
No, and that's what I mean: The ship broke up on, near, or just under the waterline, not as it appeared in JC's Titanic. A 'few' people saw it and testified to it, yes--a 'few' out of 711 people (711 is the total ascertained by Les' recent study)! The relative positions of those in the boats played a significant role in determining perception in this. However, the break (supposedly) took place after the lights went out the last time, so darkness also plays a factor in what was seen and not seen. In this particular case, those closest to the ship may have had a visual advantage over those farther away. My point: If the break up of the ship wasn't obscured by the water, then more than a mere 13 people would have seen it or would have testified to having seen it. That's my input anyway. The fact that some did see the break up suggests that the break up was at least partly visable, otherwise no one would have seen, or have testified to having seen, the ship broke in two.
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 889
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 5:18 am: |
|
I am absolutely positive that far more than the 13 people who testified at the Inquiries and told, actually saw the break. However, the British solicitors appear to have covered it up! There are quite a few testimonies that read like this:
Solicitor: Did you see the ship sink?
Intervied: Yes.
Solicitor: Changing the subject - lets talk about ......
Read 'em - one after the other - and see if you don't feel the same thing. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10512
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 6:20 am: |
|
>>Read 'em - one after the other - and see if you don't feel the same thing.<<
I had that same feeling from the start. The escape and evasion variation on a theme of Whitewash struck time and again.
>>My point: If the break up of the ship wasn't obscured by the water, then more than a mere 13 people would have seen it or would have testified to having seen it.<<
I'm sure they did, but people tend not to give answers to questions that are never asked and/or avoided and the whole thing smells mighty like Mersey and Co. were anxious to avoid something.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 478
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 7:06 am: |
|
Bill,
I was merely using the totally provided by yourself far above. When considering a grand total of 700+ survivors, any count under 50 seems like a few.
As for the whitewash, there's no argument from me. It's typical: big business screws up then desperately tries to cover its hind-end to protect its supposedly 'crystal-clean' image...As said: I'm not at all surprised.
Nor would it surprise me that at least some of those--especially sailors--who claimed they didn't see the ship break in two were lying to cover their own asses because they knew what to expect from the WSL, etc. (sorry, Michael. I'm not trying to attack seamen, but I am posing that possibility).
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10514
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 7:19 am: |
|
>>(sorry, Michael. I'm not trying to attack seamen, but I am posing that possibility).<<
No need to apologize. You may be right. When you live on skimpy wages on a one-day-at-a-time basis and want to keep feeding your family, you don't say things to get the employer honked off at you. They may invite you to put in an application elsewhere. (And lotsa luck doing so. Blacklisting was a well worn and time honoured practice then.)
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Username: hoppy
Post Number: 479
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 8:21 am: |
|
In some fields, it still is. ;)
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose!
|
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 1:42 pm: |
|
My statements about the breakup being under water and not visible referred to the bulk of the action. The point was to illustrate how some people may have honestly spoke the truth when they said the ship sank intact.
One thing that I have discovered by reviewing the testimonies is that very few lies were told, if any. That does not mean everyone described what in fact happened. It simply means that the witness gave a truthful account of what they thought they witnessed.
I am sure that some people did see what they thought was Titanic sinking intact. And, given the circumstances, they were probably about as correct in their assessments as could be. But, we know that what they thought they saw, and what actually happened, were different.
From my personal experience going through the testimonies, an apparent paradox or conflict between witnesses is an indication that the truth is more complex than the "conventional wisdom."
When it comes to Titanic, the last line of every book, documentary, or ET posting should be, "More Research Is Needed."
-- David G. Brown |
robert s hauser
Member
Username: 181526712
Post Number: 33
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - 4:52 am: |
|
Dear Dave,
Do you think it likely that at some point on the voyage back on Carpathia, that the officers might have gotten together and had a little "okay boys, let get our story straight here" type of meeting? I'm sure they were all expecting to get raked over the coals at some point. Don't you think, even if what most of what they all testified was true, that some details might have been elected to get thrown out? I'll take your single turn proposition in "Last Log" as an example. From all the testmimony I've read ( which I',m still slowly working at) no one seems to want to admit that second port round turn. Hitchens says he only turned left. Obviously he didn't. I've done some drawing and played with some models, and I think your right. There is no possible way there could have been only one turn. If there was, the whole ship would have been ripped open. It's obvious. I can't understand how they got away with glossing this over. Curious as to what you think-Rob H |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Rob -- If the officers didn't get together this failure to at least compare notes would have been a once-in-the-history-of-human-history event. They must have realized the need for some common story if only to protect themselves from loss of licenses during the inevitable governmental actions. There does seem to be evidence that at least the key witnesses had some coaching, especially prior to the Board of Trade hearings. There was too much at stake on all sides for this not to have happened.
Even so, the more I read the testimonies the less I find any outright lies or deliberate deceptions on the part of the officers and crew of Titanic. If there was a conspiracy, it was not a conspiracy of lies but more a simple agreement not to tell any more details than necessary. There is more missing from the Titanic story than there is documented fact.
CYA has been going on ever since people discovered their backsides. It's nothing new and the practice had been well established in 1912. So, I'm willing to bet there were meetings aboard Carpathia to decide who would handle the whitewash brush that Lightoller described in his autobiography.
However, the officers were not the only ones with a need to cover up dark secrets. H&W had the problem of a ship that broke apart as it sank. White Star needed to show Isman did not have any connection with events despite his appearance on the bridge--else the company would have lost its limitation of liability protection. The Board of Trade had the matter of lifeboat regulations to explain away. My view is that the "big guys" had more to hide than the surviving officers. And, the British participants had just been raked over the coals by a blundering American senator and a biased (anti-Ismay at least) American press.
All-in-all, it was not a time for anyone to be forthcoming. It's a bit surprising we have as much documentation for what occurred during the sinking as has been preserved. And, as with any story with missing pieces, the human mind fills in the gaps with myth. We see this in more modern events like the assasination of President Kennedy as well as in Titanic. After a while, the myth becomes the reality.
-- David G. Brown |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10690
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - 10:39 pm: |
|
>>I can't understand how they got away with glossing this over. Curious as to what you think-Rob H<<
To summerize what David may be trying to get across, it's a lot easier to get away with hiding some things when the inquisitors themselves have a vested interest in avoiding certain awkward questions. At least on the public side. I would love to have been the fly on the wall in the posh clubs and smoke filled backrooms where the most important "Let's-Learn-The-Lessons" conversations happened over cognac and a good cigar took place.
In my opinion of course.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
