| Author |
Message |
    
David Garley
Member
Username: dave_garley
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 7:48 pm: | 
|
Sorry if I've missed this somewhere, but I'm looking for info concerning the order in which the lifeboats were launched and the number of occupants. Can anybody help, please?
Also, a thought....... If it were possible to be transported back in time onto the Titanic knowing what we know now, would it be possible to survive the sinking? For instance, would a 2nd or 3rd class passenger have access to some of the lifeboats that were launched only partially full? |
Lester Mitcham
Member
Username: lester
Post Number: 432
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Hi David,
Try this link: http://home.att.net/~wormstedt/
for an updated study of the lifeboat launch sequence.
The number of occupants per boat is open to debate. - There are a number of sets of figures.
To your question: Yes 2nd and 3rd Class had access to some of the lifeboats that were launched only partially full. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 586
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 7:43 am: |
|
Thanks for mentioning my site, Lester.
Co-authors George Behe, Tad Fitch and I have discussed re-writing our article that is mentioned at my site, and posting to the web, but time is just too short for some of us right now. We do want to add some additional data, but nothing that changes our conclusions as to the order. |
Lester Mitcham
Member
Username: lester
Post Number: 433
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 4:06 am: |
|
Hi Bill,
You are welcome. A very informative page.
With regard to the after-starboard boats I have been looking at the various comments in Gracie and I'm having some difficulty. What portion of their crew/passengers do you believe each of those boats took onboard at the Boat deck and at A-deck respectively?
It has always seemed to me that it was somewhat daft loading those boats from A-deck as given the stairway access 2nd and 3rd Class passengers [in particular the women and children] had little hope of accessing that section of A-deck unless they had come up the after 1st Class stairway, or like Edith Russell when down the stairs near the Lounge Bar, but which look to be difficult to locate on the Boat deck level [?]. - I think this is why most of those in those boats were men.
Regards,
Lester |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 590
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 5:08 am: |
|
I don't really recall running across any kind of break-down of people from A Deck vs the Boat Deck. Other than they filled what they could from the upper deck, then lowered down to A. |
Lester Mitcham
Member
Username: lester
Post Number: 435
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 5:51 am: |
|
Thanks Bill,
Does that apply to all 4 boats? - 9, 11, 13 and 15? - I'm finding what the various crew said [particularly with regard to boat 9] conflicting.
Lester |
Christian J Cody
Member
Username: christian_cody
Post Number: 4
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 5:05 am: |
|
Here I have the order of the Lifeboats Launched and additional information.
Lifeboat 7
Launched at 12:45 AM
Contained 26 People
4% of Survivors
23 First Class Passengers
3 Deck Crew
15 Men
11 Women
Picked up by Carpathia at 5:00 AM
6th Rescued
Lifeboat 6
Launched at 12:55 AM
Contained 26 People
4% of Survivors
21 First Class Passengers
1 Third Class Passenger
2 Deck Crew
2 Restaurant Staff
5 Men
21 Women
Picked up by Carpathia at 6:00 AM
8th Rescued
Lifeboat 5
Launched at 12:55 AM
Contained 38 People
5% of Survivors
30 First Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
1 Engine Crew
5 Victualling Crew
21 Men
16 Women
1 Child
Picked up By Carpathia at 5:05 AM
5th Rescued
Lifeboat 3
Launched at 1:00 AM
Contained 39 People
5% of Survivors
27 First Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
10 Engine Crew
26 Men
12 Women
1 Child
Picked up by Carpathia at 5:55 AM
7th to be rescued
Lifeboat 1
Launched at 1:10 AM
Contained 12 People
2% of Survivors
5 First Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
5 Engine Crew
10 Men
2 Women
Picked up by Carpathia at 4:40 AM
2nd to be rescued
Lifeboat 8
Launched at 1:15 AM
Contained 26 People
4% of Survivors
23 First Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
1 Victualling Crew
3 Men
23 Women
Picked up by Carpathiaat 7:00 AM
11th to be rescued
Lifeboat 10
Launched at 1:20 AM
Contained 34 People
5% of Survivors
8 First Class Passengers
17 Second Class Passengers
6 Third Class Passengers
1 Deck Crew
1 Engine Crew
1 Victualling Crew
4 Men
24 Women
6 Children
Picked up by Carpathia at 7:05 AM
12th to be Rescued
Lifeboat 14
Launched at 1:27 AM
Contained 44 People
6% of Survivors
4 First Class Passengers
24 Second Class Passengers
6 Third Class Passengers
4 Deck Crew
2 Engine Crew
4 Victualling Crew
14 Men
20 Women
10 Children
Picked up by Carpathia at 7:05 AM
13th to be Rescued
Lifeboat 16
Launched at 1:28 AM
Contained 37 People
5% of Survivors
3 Second Class Passengers
24 Third Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
1 Engine Crew
7 Victualling Crew
6 Men
30 Women
1 Child
Picked up by Carpathia at 7:30 AM
16th to be rescued
Lifeboat 9
Launced at 1:30 AM
Contained 45 People
6% of Survivors
6 First Class Passengers
19 Second Class Passengers
3 Third Class Passengers
4 Deck Crew
4 Engine Crew
8 Victualling Crew
25 Men
19 Women
1 Child
Picked up by Carpathia at 5:00 AM
4th to be rescued
Lifeboat 12
Launched at 1:30 AM
Contained 23 People
3% of Survivors
1 First Class Passenger
18 Second Class Passengers
2 Third Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
3 Men
19 Women
1 Child
Picked up by Carpathia at 8:30 AM
18th to be rescued
Lifeboat 11
Launched at 1:35 AM
Contained 55 People
8% of Survivors
6 First Class Passengers
15 Second Class Passengers
7 Third Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
25 Victualling Crew
22 Men
27 Women
6 Children
Picked up by Carpathia at 8:00 AM
17th to be rescued
Lifeboat 13
Launched at 1:40 AM
Contained 66 People
9% of Survivors
1 First Class Passenger
12 Second Class Passengers
30 Third Class Passengers
3 Deck Crew
5 Engine Crew
14 Victualling Crew
1 Restaurant Staff
36 Men
21 Women
9 Children
Picked up by Carpathia at 4:45 AM
3rd to be rescued
Lifeboat 15
Launched at 1:40 AM
Contained 70 People
10% of Survivors
1 First Class Passenger
1 Second Class Passenger
37 Third Class Passengers
1 Deck Crew
17 Engine Crew
13 Victualling Crew
52 Men
12 Women
6 Children
Picked up by Carpathia at 7:30 AM
15th to be rescued
Lifeboat 2
Launched at 1:45 AM
Contained 17 People
2% of Survivors
7 First Class Passengers
6 Third Class Passengers
2 Deck Crew
2 Victualling Crew
5 Men
9 Women
3 Children
Picked up by Carpathia at 4:10 AM
1st to be rescued
Lifeboat 4
Launched at 1:50 AM
Contained 49 People
7% of Survivors
25 First Class Passengers
8 Second Class Passengers
4 Deck Crew
10 Engine Crew
2 Victualling Crew
16 Men
26 Women
7 Children
Picked up by Carpathia at 6:55 AM
10th to be rescued
Collapsible C
Launched 2:00 AM
Contained 46 People
6% of Survivors
2 First Class Passengers
38 Third Class Passengers
1 Deck Crew
3 Engine Crew
2 Victualling Crew
13 Men
18 Women
15 Children
Picked up by the Carpathia at 6:30 AM
9th to be rescued
Collapsible D
Launched 2:05 AM
Contained 21 People
3% of Survivors
7 First Class Passengers
2 Second Class Passengers
9 Third Class Passengers
5 Men
13 Women
3 Children
Picked up by Carpathia at 7:00 AM
14th to be rescued
Collapsible A (Swamped)
Cast off at 2:12 AM
Contained 11 People
2% of Survivors
2 First Class Passengers
5 Third Class Passengers
2 Engine Crew
3 Victualling Crew
10 Men
1 Woman
Passengers were rescued by Lifeboat 12
Collapsible B (Overturned)
Cast off at 2:13 AM
Contained 25 People
2 First Class Passengers
1 Second Class Passenger
4 Third Class Passengers
1 Deck Crew
11 Engine Crew
6 Victualling Crew
25 Men
Rescued by Lifeboats 4 and 14 |
Lester Mitcham
Member
Username: lester
Post Number: 964
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 5:27 am: |
|
Hello Christian,
I guess you have names to go with those numbers. Could you please either list them on E-T or send me a Private Message. Thank you.
With regard to the launch times you might want to look at: http://home.comcast.net/~bwormst/titanic/lifeboats/lifeboats.htm. It offers a very informative insight for a Revised Lifeboat Launching Sequence. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1079
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Thanks for posting that link, Lester - you beat me to it!
Christian - where are you getting your information?
Bill
|
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 766
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 1:14 am: |
|
It is "modern researchers" who decided they knew better than Albert Pearcey and moved the departure for Collapsible C to close to the end-time.
The British Inquiry put its departure at 1.40am as Pearcey repeatedly stated in evidence, but the modernists knew better, setting further traps for the unwary.
FACT: None of the passengers known to have escaped in Collapsible C have ever spoken of mass disorder or shootings prior to their launch.
I have a number of their accounts. Woolner does not specify what collapsible he is talking about, although Senator Smith asked whether it could be the first starboard collapsible.
Senator Smith might want a lot of things to be a particular way, being out to nail responsibility where it resided in his pre-Inquiry declarations, but that's beside the point. Woolner just wasn't in a position to answer the question.
The getting of A from the officers' roof down to the boat deck was obviously a major operation. When it did get down, the boat was swarmed.
If Pearcey is right about C going at 1.40, and Brown is right about it taking 10-12 minutes to get A down, then we are nicely up to 1.50 or 1.52 by the time A is down on the deck.
Plenty of time for argy-bargy and shots.
We know it didn't launch properly, but lay there on the deck for some time, occupied, cleared, re-occupied, and finally devastated by the onrush of the sea.
Eustace Phillip Snow in his deposition [edited here by me] intimates another reason, besides the inability to hoist a boat to davits and overside when it is full of people on the deck:
"I helped launch the starboard collapsible boat, but she stove her bow in when she fell on the boat deck, and she turned over by the rush of water."
There are very few commentators on 'A' for the very simple reason that most in the vicinity were speedily drowned. However there are some.
I would meanwhile be interested to see any clear evidence for gunplay or serious argy-bargy when either Ismay or Collapsible C was demonstrably still on the ship.
Of course, it was all a long time ago...
Wasn't there myself, mind you. So I'm not going to make any swaggering pronouncements about the circumstances of the man's departure. Happy Christmas. |
Teri Lynn Milch
Member
Username: tmilch
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
“FACT: None of the passengers known to have escaped in Collapsible C have ever spoken of mass disorder or shootings prior to their launch.”
Right on the dot!
We must have spent our day doing the same thing. Here are my notes on almost everyone in boat C:
1)William Carter – not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
2)Joseph Abraham – not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
3)Gerios Assaf - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
4)Eugenie Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 3 yrs old.
5)Helene Baclini – not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 mos old.
6)Maria Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 5 yrs old.
7)Solomon Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
8)Emily Badman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
9)Lee Bing - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
10)Aiyub Dahir - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 14 yrs old.
11)Margaret Devaney - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 18 yrs old.
12)Choong Foo - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 13 yrs old. Chinaman.
13)Frank Goldsmith - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
14)William Carter – not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
15)Joseph Abraham – not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
16)Gerios Assaf - not found in either Enquiry. No tesimony given.
17)Eugenie Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 3 yrs old.
18)Helene Baclini – not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 mos old.
19)Maria Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 5 yrs old.
20)Solomon Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
21)Emily Badman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
22)Lee Bing - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
23)Aiyub Dahir - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 14 yrs old.
24)Margaret Devaney - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 18 yrs old.
25)Choong Foo - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 13 yrs old. Chinaman.
26)Frank Goldsmith - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
27)Frank Goldsmith Jr. - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 yrs old.
28)Ling Hee - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
29)May Howard – Found in British Enquiry. Testified mostly to steerage passengers being locked below decks.
30)Abraham Hyman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
31)Mary Joseph - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 2 yrs old.
32)Peter Joseph - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
33)Ali Lam - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
34)Gerios Moubarek - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
35)Albert Pearcey – British Enquiry. This 3rd class pantryman passed the 3rd class passengers through the emergency door which lead to the first class saloon companion (deck E) which lead to the alleyway to first class door. That's how many of the 3rd class passengers got to the boat deck! This passenger said he saw the keel visible.
36)Albert Weikman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given, but affidavit given, and was printed in “The Ismay Line.”
There were a total of 45 people in this Collapsible Boat C. Others I did not list were 3rd class children, young adults, and adults who were not asked to give testimony. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Hmmm, I see Molony chooses to call us "modern researchers", in a derogatory fashion. Aren't we ALL (including him), modern researchers?
He said "FACT: None of the passengers known to have escaped in Collapsible C have ever spoken of mass disorder or shootings prior to their launch."
Try NO FACT. Take a look at the testimonies of Woolner or Thayer. And it's obvious you don't have Mrs. Goldsmith's account or you wouldn't be sitting there with your foot in your mouth again.
Yes, Pearcey stated 1:40. However, this time was from a passengers watch - and who knows what time they may have been keeping! Had they set it back before going to bed? Possibly, no way to tell.
We also have Rowe's statement that the ship sank 20 minutes before the ship sank - pointing more to 2:00, instead of 11:40.
And Woolner, though he doesn't mention C by name, is obviously talking about it. He mentions "when that boat seemed to be quite full, and was ready to be swung over the side, and was to be lowered away". Obviously cannot be A, as A was never 'quite full' and ready to be lowered away, and definitely was a collapsible as opposed to a wooden lifeboat.
Regarding Snow's statement, he does state the starboard collapsible. However, he also states "she turned over". Sounds a bit more like Collapsible B, possibly?
Bill
|
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 767
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 8:32 pm: |
|
Hi Bill,
Thayer didn't give testimony. Look up what the word 'testimony' means. He wrote a book in 1940.
We have Woolner, talking about an indeterminate starboard collapsible, either A or C.
If it is C, then Woolner, the sole person to give *testimony* about attendant disorder, is contradicted by ahem, Ismay, Brown, Rowe, Weikman and Pearcey.
That's 5-1, Bill. The five all know what boat they were talking about - Woolner doesn't.
But Bill Wormstedt does! How do you do it, my friend?
A person (Pearcey) who was there at the time, April 1912, said repeatedly that C left at 1.40pm.
You say this watch was on a passenger. It actually isn't specified Bill, but you must be right, eh?
This man's claim, against interpreting Woolner for C rather than A, is supported by Ismay. He is looking back at the Titanic while Woolner's collapsible is still on board. How can it be C?
You, who weren't there, claim that C left at the end time. You took it on yourself to change the British Inquiry time for its departure from 11.40 to around 2am.
You are deciding, meanwhile, that a person also took it on themselves to put their watch back 20 minutes prior to retiring... a rather dubious proposition.
But you need it to be that way, just as you need Woolner to be right in a choice that is at very best 50:50, and you think this one piece of *testimony* trumps five others that are totally to the contrary?
You win 1-5?
Have a GREAT 2006, Bill. You've pulled a spectacular piece of certainty for the end of 2005... must be nice for you! |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 768
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 10:39 pm: |
|
Bill, Old Man,
You seem pretty, uh, certain, from your post above, that the Goldsmiths were in Collapsible C.
How do you know?
Frank Goldsmith in the thread below, says his grandfather and Dad "both believed they were in Boat D":
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5665/64.html?948628740
He says: " It has always been "known" in our family that dad and grandmother were on D."
Dennis Foley then posted that he had the pleasure of meeting Frank Goldsmith at the 1973 THS Convention "and he clearly indicated to us that he escaped in Boat D.
"He even showed us the strange path the boat took--instead of rowing away in a straight line it went back towards the stern and then crossed over to the starboard side!
"Also, someone in the crowd asked about Edith Evans and he responded that he remembered a woman approaching the boat but for some reason being left behind."
But never what the survivors say, Bill. You are a "modern researcher" and I am sure you are right!
Not. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 769
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 12:56 am: |
|
Bill Wormstedt opined:
quote:And Woolner, though he doesn't mention C by name, is obviously talking about it. He mentions "when that boat seemed to be quite full, and was ready to be swung over the side, and was to be lowered away". Obviously cannot be A, as A was never 'quite full' and ready to be lowered away, and definitely was a collapsible as opposed to a wooden lifeboat.
The only 'obviously' is that Bill Wormstedt is confused.
This is the actual quote, and it is quite clear that in relation to the boat cited, Woolner is talking about Collapsible D:
quote:Mr Woolner: Then they eventually lowered all the wooden lifeboats on the port side, and then they got out a collapsible and hitched her onto the most forward davits and they filled that up, mostly with steerage women and children, and one seaman, and a steward, and I think one other man - but I am not quite certain about that - and when that boat [Collapsible D, still on the port side] seemed to be quite full, and was ready to be swung over the side, and was to be lowered away, I said to Steffanson: "There is nothing more for us to do here." Oh, no; something else happened while that boat was
being loaded. There was a sort of scramble on the starboard side, and I looked around and I saw two flashes of a pistol in the air.
Woolner at no point says the starboard collapsible he saw was "about to be lowered away." Sorry Bill, you are wrong.
You also tell us, with certainty, that A was "never quite full."
I am afraid you are contradicted by Edward Brown, who was at Collapsible A, unlike yourself:
quote:10652. Was there anybody in there (A)?
BROWN — There was a lot scrambled into it then; when the sea came on to the deck they all scrambled into the boat.
10653. How many? Can you give us an idea? — I have no idea — practically full. The boat was practically full, when the sea came into it, and washed them all out.
Sorry Bill, wrong again.
And I've more! |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 770
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
RECAP after 100 posts - Ismay left in Collapsible C. The British Inquiry said this happened at 1.40am.
Paul Lee and Bill Wormstedt suggest here that Collapsible C actually left at 2am - and that Ismay, Weikman, Brown, Pearcey and Rowe were therefore lying about Collapsible C's departure being orderly, without passengers desperately trying to get in when Ismay left.
Yet there is no specific evidentiary basis for believing that Collapsible C left at 2am.
Bill Wormstedt in 1999 published something called Revised Launch Times with his friend George Behe, which suddenly claimed Collapsible C left at 2am.
This is the only reason Bill now gives:
quote:Rowe's statement that the ship sank 20 minutes before the ship sank - pointing more to 2:00, instead of 11:40.
Don't mind the 11.40 time at the end, there. That is another of Bill's mistakes. He means 1.40am, the time for C's departure given by the British Inquiry, and not the time of iceberg impact.
In the next post we shall examine the basis for George and Bill's changing of the British Inquiry time of 1.40am (cited because a person actually in Boat C gave this time on departure).
We shall see how strong or flimsy is Bill's basis for his 2am assertion. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 771
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 9:15 am: |
|
Dear old Bill Wormstedt wrote:
quote:We also have Rowe's statement that the ship sank 20 minutes before the ship sank - pointing more to 2:00, instead of 11:40.
Bill doesn’t actually mean that the ship “sank before it sank.”
He means that Rowe's boat – Collapsible C - departed 20 minutes before the ship sank, although his writing, as we can see, is confused.
Yet that's true:
Senator Burton: She must have sunk soon after you left?
Rowe: Twenty minutes, I believe.
Oh, but, jeepers, Bill - you didn't mention this other part of Rowe's US testimony:
Burton: How far from the ship were you when she went down?
Rowe: About three-quarters of a mile, sir.
How is this consistent with YOUR 2am departure time for his boat, Bill?
Did you overlook it, or did you just decide to ignore the discrepancy?
And Rowe also says in his US evidence:
Rowe: Yes, sir. When we left the ship the fore well-deck was awash; that is, when we pushed off from the ship. It was 1.25 when I left the bridge to get into the boat. [Bill! See this bit?] When the boat was in the water the well deck was submerged. It took us a good five minutes to lower the boat on account of this rubbing going down.
1.25 plus 5 mins = 1.30am. Ten minutes for loading? Pearcey repeatedly heard the time given on deparature as 1.40am. Rowe is consistent with Pearcey’s time.
They are consistent with each other.
But how are they consistent with YOUR 2am departure time, Bill?
How is Rowe consistent with a person’s “putting back his watch” twenty minutes, as you suggest must have happened?
Rowe repeats in his British testimony -
(Br. 17688) that when he put off in C, the fore well-deck [ie, C deck level] was under water, but "the forecastle head [B deck] was not submerged."
How is this consistent with YOUR 2am departure time for Rowe’s boat, Bill?
Rowe, at least, was in it…
At 2am the sea was licking its lips and about to wreak havoc. It was not dawdling about on C deck. Woolner says the water was at his feet on A deck at the time. He jumped into D there, because “if we had waited a minute longer we should have been boxed in against the ceiling.”
Did you also overlook or ignore this next slice of his evidence, Bill, again from America?
Rowe: I assisted the officer to fire them (rockets), and was firing the distress signals until about five and twenty minutes after 1. At that time they were getting out the starboard collapsible boats. The chief officer, Wilde, wanted a sailor. I asked Capt. Smith if I should fire any more, and he said "No: get into that boat."
(1.25am!)
"I went to the boat. Women and children were being passed in. I assisted six, three woman and three children. The order was then given to lower the boat. The chief officer wanted to know if there were more women and children. There were none in the vicinity. Two gentlemen passengers got in; the boat was then lowered."
How is this consistent with YOUR 2am departure time, Bill?
You see, you are the one saying 2am. How do you explain these contra-indications in the evidence of a witness that you yourself put forward as worthy of credence?
I’m curious. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
But surely, the people who came to Ismay's defence were in no position to contradict his statement about the lack of people on the boat deck as boat C was lowered. If there was a rush around the boat, then White Star Line employees would hardly have said that the chairman was in the middle of it, and that he somehow managed to get aboard the boat? Also, Carter would be in the same situation- how did he get aboard with so many others around?
By the way, heres what Thayer wrote to Milton Long's father on 23/4/12
"..we went to the starboard side of the boat deck.
There was an awful crowd around the last boat
of the forward part of the starboard side, pushing
and shoving wildly....we thought it would never
reach the water right side up, but it did."
Reagrding Woolner seeing boat A rather than boat C, when I first read the arguments, I was impressed.
But then I went back to Gracie's book.
It would take too long to quote verbatim what he said, but this is a summary:
boat A is hoisted down from the roof of the officer's quarters. The boat seems to have spent a while on the boat deck, and Gracie wonders whether this is due to the crew wanting to launch boats A and B at the same time.
At this point, 15 minutes after the launching of boat D, water starts to gurgle up the forward staircase on the starboard boat deck. By this point, A deck is flooded, and boat D has gone, although admittedly, Gracie does not seem to have seen this happen.
Gracie does not mention the mad panic that Woolner saw, although he does say that there were many people around wanting to board the boat. Gracie and Clinch Smith then head aft to met by the mass of humanity etc.
When Woolner headed to A deck, it was dry. when boat A was being readied, it must have been at least partially awash. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
>Bill doesn’t actually mean that the ship “sank before it sank.”<
Bad typing on my part, due to trying to rush out of here for the holidays.
Back to Woolner: Obviously you aren't reading his testimony close enough, Mr. Molony, as Woolner*corrected* Senator Smith about which collapsible he was talking about. In the center of page 886 of the US hearings, Woolner is very specific about seeing "two flashes of a pistol" and Smith asks if it was at the first collapsible on the port. Woolner replies "on the starboard side".
>It is "modern researchers" who decided they knew better than Albert Pearcey and moved the departure for Collapsible C to close to the end-time.<
So, we have Rowe who gives us a leave time of 20 minutes before the ship sank, and Ismay himself gives us an even shorter time of 10 minutes. Though Ismay's estimate is rough, it is far closer to a 2:00 launch time than to an 1:40 launch time.
I am not sure which '1999' article I wrote that you are refering to. Regardless, my (and George Behe's and Tad Fitch's) current views on the subject were published in the THS Commutator in 2001. In that article we fully address the entire issue of Rowe's time keeping. See that article for details . George himself published an article with the 2:00 launch time as early as 1991.
And there is the issue of William Carter, another surivior in Collapsible C. He claimed to put his family into Lifeboat #4, *before* he left in C. If #4 left at 1:55, as stated in the British Inquiry, how could he leave at 1:40? Answer - because C did *not* leave at 1:40, it left after #4, closer to a 2:00 time frame.
You make quite an issue of Frankie Goldsmith's conviction that he left in D, not C. However, these are the memories of a mere boy writing years after the disaster. Mrs. Goldsmith, his mother, on the other hand, was an adult in 1912 and recounted her story within days of the disaster. Mrs. Goldsmith said that the four Chinese stowaways were in her lifeboat and that they refused to get out when the officer fired his gun. Needless to say, the four Chinese stowaways were in Collapsible C along with Ismay. As an aside, Mrs. Goldsmith also refers to the gunfire at C.
Paul: Thanks for mentioning Gracie's account, written in the few months after the disaster before Gracie died. I was going to mention it myself, but you beat me to it!
Bill
|
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 772
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Paul,
Thanks for the Thayer quote:
"..we went to the starboard side of the boat deck. There was an awful crowd around the last boat of the forward part of the starboard side, pushing and shoving wildly....we thought it would never reach the water right side up, but it did."
That's consistent with Collapsible A.
It is not consistent with the testimony as to C.
Brown talks of the scrum, wild shoving. So does Thayer and Woolner. At 'A'. People can be washed out of 'A,' and the boat is flung off - we know it lands right side up because Rhoda Abbott, Edvard and Gerda Lindell are in it, etc.
It's found floating right side up.
But there is nothing to say that the wild scrum is around Collapsible C. A wash-out and a washaway for Collapsible A is no surprise.
The wash-out (and Snow's deposition) supports the people who talk about a starboard forward boat being devastated by a wave, or capsizing. It can turn right side up thereafter. I'm not surprised, because it was found that way.
Think about this - the five crew who gave evidence about Collapsible C and who supported Ismay's contention about nobody around when it left - do not include men beholden to the White Star Line.
Ismay is the very first witness of any called. Imagine there was a wild panic and a scrum. First of all, is Ismay tough enough to prosper?
And if he is somehow given preferential treatment, why would a pantryman like Pearcey - a bottlewasher basically (*let's not analyse what a pantryman does!), who also survives *in the scrum* by fighting tooth and nail, might and main, back up Ismay?
He can get any other menial job any time, but his life was arguably jeopardised to save the MD...
What does he owe to Ismay if Ismay is now brazenly lying under oath about a nice orderly procession at 2am with nobody around. [Two am, for God's sake! Who's going to believe that!!]}
That just does not make sense, and NOBODY from Collapsible C contradicted Ismay. Not on the lack of people, not on the orderliness, not on the time of departure.
Gracie (a very unreliable witness anyway - let's not get into that either, I have parties to go to!) is just not relevant to the departure of Collapsible C.
Paul, I am going to debrief Woolner for you in probably the next post. Don't forget that Woolner does not know what Collapsible he is looking at, and you can't just decide that it is C.
You have to test that theory. I'll test it for you - then you can give me reasons why it COULD be Collapsible C. Sound fair?
But you did say something interesting:
quote:If there was a rush around the boat, then White Star Line employees would hardly have said that the chairman was in the middle of it, and that he somehow managed to get aboard the boat? Also, Carter would be in the same situation- how did he get aboard with so many others around?
Now, Paul, let's imagine that the above scenario is the correct one. Let's assume thereafter that you are Ismay in these circumstances.
What are you going to testify when you are the very first witness called?
You will want to testify without fear of contradiction, won't you? You don't want to antagonise anyone - the Hearst papers have you in enough trouble, right?
You are going to say, quoting your able counsel Paul Lee: "The was a rush around the boat, Senator. I was trying to keep order. I was in the middle of it, and I somehow managed to get aboard the boat. I had been helping women in, and then the officers were forced to draw revolvers."
He is offering practically no side to his accusers in that case.
In some sense it is worse that he wasn't pushed or shoved in by an officer firing a gun, but calmly stepped in of his own volition earlier in the night. That conscience issue won't go away.
But I am struck by Ismay's uncompromising clarity in his opening evidence. It is very stark. He obviously has no fear of contradiction - and he is not contradicted.
It is not just boat C occupants who back him up, by the way, and not just those left behind like Weikman and Brown who would have added reason to feel aggrieved.
There is a whole network of interdependency which shows that a 2am departure time for Collapsible C (with attendant unpleasantness) simply cannot stand.
The persons in 1912 who are providing these linkages are sometimes doing so unconsciously, so cannot be attempting to either do Ismay a favour or do him a disservice.
The testing of Woolner next. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 773
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 9:16 pm: |
|
There has been championing here of Hugh Woolner – as if Woolner was seeing Collapsible C when he sees gunplay at a collapsible boat at the deck on the starboard side.
Woolner can’t tell if that’s the first collapsible or the second one.
But here are 10 quick Problem Points for Woolner and his advocates if the collapsible he sees is actually C and not A (which followed):
1) We know Quartermaster Rowe was in Boat C. (He testifies so, but more importantly Bill W tells us all about him!!).
Yet Woolner says that it was Officer Murdoch who shouted at the men who had swarmed into this Woolner-witnessed collapsible to “get out, clear out.”
Woolner and Steffanson then “helped the officer” to pull the men out. What was Quartermaster Rowe doing? Sitting on his hands?
Funny that Murdoch should have to intervene on Collapsible C when it was Collapsible A that had no crewman in command!
2) Ismay and Rowe discovered four Chinese/Filipinos under the thwarts of C after they had put off. How was this possible if all the swarming men had been pulled out or chased out by Woolner, Steffanson and Murdoch?
3) Why did not any of the C occupants offer the possibility that the ‘thwarters’ escaped the prior clear-out, if there was such a clear out (as happened at Woolner's collapsible)?
Why did Ismay say they had “stowed away,” as if he had never seen them before in his life? Why were they only discovered “after the boat was lowered”?
4) Rowe was asked: 17651. How they got in you do not know, I suppose? — No.
Rowe does not say: “Well, actually, a bunch of foreigners dived in before we left, and Murdoch had the devil of a job clearing them out while Ismay and I scratched ourselves or polished our nails.”
5) Woolner mentions Murdoch – but Ismay and Rowe say Chief Officer Wilde oversaw the loading of Boat C.
They just don’t place Murdoch there at the time of their departure and neither does anyone else.
6) See point 1. What was Chief Officer Wilde doing when Murdoch had to clear the boat with only the help of Woolner and friend? Playing three-handed bridge with Ismay and Rowe?
It is no good to suggest Woolner could have been mixed up here as to identities: He actually corrects Senator Smith as to the identity of the Chief Officer (!) and points out that Murdoch was the first officer. He says he recognised Murdoch by his voice.
7) In the opposite-which-proves 5), Woolner does not say he saw Chief Officer Wilde, whom he could distinguish from Murdoch, at what was indeed Collapsible C.
8) ‘Weikman’ (Whiteman) said Collapsible C had gone and boat A was attempting to be launched when the sea finally blew everyone away. Add his to Thayer, Brown, and Snow on this point.
He was washed overboard. “This was about 1.50am.” (Did he put his watch back, 2am-Bill? – Collapsible C is long gone!)
“How do you know it was 1.50am? – “Because my watch was stopped at that time by the water,” the witness, who was actually there in 1912, said.
9) Most crucially, Woolner does not say he saw his starboard collapsible launched. And yet C was launched, and was three-quarters of a mile from the ship (according to Rowe, Bill W’s favoured witness) when the ship sank.
10) Woolner’s account closely resembles that of Brown, ‘Weikman’ and even Thayer (Collapsible A). It does not resemble that of anyone in Collapsible C.
And he makes no linkage whatever with Ismay – the point of the debate on Collapsible C and the time it left.
Now, Paul or Bill, do you want to offer the fine folks here TEN REASONS why we should decide Woolner's collapsible is actually Collapsible C?
BTW, I've a couple of arguments in reserve, as I always have! |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 774
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 9:23 pm: |
|
Bill Wormstedt,
I might address your post in the morning.
I am not impressed by your second para, which is the sad old "straw man" approach of the desperate, involving setting up an argument I didn't make (find it from me!!) and then knocking it down.
You are either confused yet again (Don't type so quickly, maybe! Read posts slower, maybe!) or else you are attempting a deception.
Not impressed.
Of course I accept Woolner's testimony about the pistol flashes pertains to the starboard side collapsible. Of course I accept that. Doh!
You were claiming that his remark about Boat D being "ready to lower" was about Boat A, a very public mistake on your part.
I didn't get further than your Straw Man, but I will finish off your argument tomorrow, Bill. I most sincerely promise. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
Straw Man? Is that anything like inventing Mystery Ships?
Bill
|
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 777
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Paul,
Gracie sez nuthin’ about shots or disorder. I checked – as I didn’t think he did.
Otherwise you boys would have posted it, right?
He does talk, as Brown, Snow and Weikman do, of Collapsible A being lowered.
Just doesn’t mention shots or disorder. But he writes pages about the ship sinking intact...
What are you trying to establish here, by even mentioning Gracie?
I can’t believe you would be hinting at a notion that, because Gracie didn’t report shots at A, that the shots must actually have come at C, the earlier boat?
I mean, are you seriously suggesting that? Come out and say it if you are!
That is, clinically speaking, perverse logic. Utterly perverse!
Could anyone imagine that this is likely – that there are shots and mayhem at the early starboard collapsible, but everything is unremarkable (and unremarked on!) at the later one…
For the record - and I can’t believe I even have to state this - I have no difficulty with accounts of shots and mayhem at the LAST starboard collapsible. That’s perfectly understandable. But it’s Collapsible A. Because there’s no evidence for it being C.
If Gracie is silent on the last starboard collapsible, he’s just silent on it. It means nothing either way. No evidence.
Jeez…
S |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 778
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 8:56 am: |
|
It is just as I thought:
* Attempts [by those who claim Woolner's starboard collapsible at the end-time was Collapsible C] to deal with my ten Problem Points if this is really the case -
ZERO.
* Attempts by those who claim Woolner's starboard collapsible at the end-time was Collapsible C to give us ten reasons of their own why this should be the case -
ZERO.
Paul Lee has made this statement:
quote:Woolner specifically says that people were swarming into the boat, meaning that it hadn't been lowered yet. In the middle of all that mess was Ismay.
I say: Prove your statement.
Prove that boat was C.
Prove that "In the middle of all that mess was Ismay."
That is the point of this discussion. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 779
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
To Bill's effort to justify his, Bill's, changing of the British Inquiry time for the departure of Collapsible C from 1.40am to 2am -
Bill re-revised George Behe's Titanic Tidbits thing on this subject and put his name and George's to their Revised Launch Times and a big copyright sign on it.
You signed off on George's changed time for C, Bill. I presume you checked into it.
You offer no actual testimony here for such a serious decision to change a boat time - other than a remark by Rowe about the time of the sinking (backtracked); it being "twenty minutes" after his boat left.
How reliable is that? Didn't they all virtually suggest that the sinking happened shortly after they left? Isn't it like leaving in the proverbial 'last boat'?
We remember that Rowe's sinking remark is contradicted by other evidence out of his own mouth, which Bill scrupulously avoids dealing with. These parts must be unreliable, yet Bill's sole cherrypick is?
Yet that's the only piece of testimony that is directly related to Collapsible C's time that falls on his side.
You have no other witnesses, and as with the Goldsmiths, I am not going to accept newspaper tittle tattle from unsworn or undeposed persons.
You will appreciate (well, I do from my research into the Irish) that practically every survivor also led themselves to believe, or were led to believe, that they were in Ismay's boat.
Bill said:
>>Rowe's time keeping. See that article for details . George himself published an article with the 2:00 launch time as early as 1991. <<
Here we come to the nub of the matter. Why "modern researchers" arbitrarily changed the departure time of Collapsible C to 2am.
George's publication declares on its front: "Corrections to the commonly accepted version of the sequence in which the Titanic's lifeboats were loaded with passengers and loaded away."
Under Collapsible C, George says this:
Collapsible C was the last boat to be launched from the starboard side. He claims the British Inquiry time as a "misstatement of fact." And who does he rely on? - Woolner!!!!!
FACT: Woolner does not specify which of the starboard collapsibles it is that he sees at the end time.
FACT: There are at least ten problem points for it to be C, rather than A. Woolner better fits with other testimony as to A.
Why does George decide Woolner's collapsible was C?
Gee, he doesn't give a single reason.
He just assumes it.
Based on this coruscating logic, George Behe tries to find a time for the departure time "error" (as decided on a faulty presumption by George) cited by the British Inquiry.
George (and Bill) can't however get away from what pantryman Albert Pearcey actually said as Collapsible C was leaving:
That a man in the boat declared that it was now 1.40am.
Not 2am.
1.40am - and Pearcey states this repeatedly in evidence. (Evidence by a 1912er, not assumption by a modernist.)
Now, to get by this problem, George DECIDES (again! assumption number two!) that this man with the watch is Officer Rowe.
Think about this: George decides that!
Bill Wormstedt, a few posts ago, told us authoritatively that this watch was on a *passenger.*
Passenger or Officer? Shall we wind the man, like the watch, forward or back?
Actually Bill is right. Pearcey said it was a PASSENGER:
quote:10456. Can you give us any idea of how long it was after you had started rowing away from the Titanic before she sank? — No, I cannot. It was 20 minutes to two when we came away from her.
10457. That will help us. It was 20 minutes to two, you remember, when you started rowing
away from the ship’s side — is that right? — Yes.
10458. That is what you mean, is it? — Yes.
10459. Not when you came up on deck, but when you started rowing away? — Yes, when we got away. It was just in time.
10460. How do you remember it was 20 minutes to two? — Because I looked at the time.
10461. That is what I wanted to know. Where did you look at the time? — One of the passengers had the time.
10462. And it was 20 minutes to 2? — Yes.
Now, where are we?
Behe specifically suggests the Pearcey watch was on Rowe, the Quartermaster.
His THIRD ASSUMPTION is that Rowe wound back his watch by twenty minutes, because George would just like it that way. Throw some WMD into the boat while you are at it.
But Pearcey blows Behe's ASSUMPTION out of the water. He says passenger!
An Officer would only put back his watch to reflect ship's expected apparent noon the next day.
A passenger will not do that until he sees the ship's clocks (adjusted) in the morning.
The passenger's watch is running on as normal, and it totally defeats the wind-back argument. Which in itself was always another ASSUMPTION that anyone wound back their watches.
Rowe does not testify: "I wound back my watch." He does not do that and nobody testifies that. They say the ship's clocks were "due to go back" if they mention it.
Pearcey knew Rowe as the Quartermaster. Pearcey does not say that Rowe mentioned any time. Rowe does not contradict what the passenger says - 1.40am.
But how comfortable are we now with a construct that proceeds initially from three sequential assumptions? Just to get started!
We're not there yet.
Family duties call me.
I have much more to post to kill this thing stone dead.
Perhaps this evening, if time allows. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Senan, Thayer made it clear that he and Long WATCHED the boat descend to the waterline. I'll post more of this and Thayers stuff later on, but I don't know if I'll be bothered considering just how hostile you are.
I mention Gracie to show that at the time boat A was on the deck, water would have reached A deck. And yet Woolner says nothing about rushing back to his cabin for water wings, polystyrene floats etc. to save him from the water on this deck as he crosses over to ultimately get into boat D. Obviously Woolner was such a poor observer that he didn't notice that he was paddling through water to go from starboard to port.
I don't mind debating with anyone, but when it comes to your OBNOXIOUS superiority complex, thinking you, and only you can pontificate on matters Titanic - and lets not beat about the bush- Senan CAN NEVER be wrong - you can debate by yourself from now on. Other people can put up with your vitriol, but not I. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
>You signed off on George's changed time for C, Bill. I presume you checked into it.<
Absolutely! The revised times you are refering to contain changes to George's previously published document. I agreed with George's logic for 2 am, and I presented him with some evidence to change his opinion on #10. The revised times were agreed to by *both* George and I. Our 2001 published article (with Tad Fitch) has some differences beyond that, as further research showed more discrepencies in the British times.
>>You offer no actual testimony here for such a serious decision to change a boat time - other than a remark by Rowe about the time of the sinking (backtracked); it being "twenty minutes" after his boat left.<
Absurd. We gave a detailed analysis of why we felt Rowe put his watch back 23 minutes. Besides, Woolner made it clear that the *swung-out* starboard collapsible (Collapsible C) was still unlaunched while Collapsible D was being loaded with passengers. And Woolner's description of going down to A Deck after seeing this, fits very well with Rowe's description of the Well Deck being flooded as they were being lowered.
>a few posts ago, told us authoritatively that this watch was on a *passenger.*<
Nope. Pearcey said that. See 10461 of the British Inquiry.
>>as with the Goldsmiths, I am not going to accept newspaper tittle tattle from unsworn or undeposed persons.<
Seems you don't accept *any* information that counters your own personal agenda. (If you regard newspaper accounts as "tittle tattle," why is there so much tittle tattle in your Irish book -- especially seeing that *this* tittle tattle came from the mouths of Irish immigrants.) It's good to see, though, that you acknowledge that newspapermen (aka "journalists") are not to be believed when they write things for public consumption.
>>You will appreciate (well, I do from my research into the Irish) that practically every survivor also led themselves to believe, or were led to believe, that they were in Ismay's boat.<
Mrs. Goldsmith didn't mention Ismay in her account at all - she mentioned the four Chinese survivors who were in her boat. If you know of four *other* Chinese survivors who were in *another* boat other than Collapsible C, I hope you'll let us know!
>>George's publication declares on its front:
"Corrections to the commonly accepted version of the sequence in which the Titanic's lifeboats were loaded with passengers and loaded away."<
The difference between George and you is that George acknowledges that his small research paper contained errors and has attempted to correct those errors in his subsequent published work. By the way, are you intending to follow George's example and publish a new brand article correcting your false accusations against Johanna Steinke? And did you ever correct "The Middle Watch"? I checked and unless you made some extremely minor change I cannot recognize, I still you blowing your own horn about how great you are to release it - though it had come out earlier from different sources.
>>Why does George decide Woolner's collapsible was C?<
Because Woolner said he was talking about a starboard collapsible that was filled up with people and then *swung out.* The latter point eliminates every candidate except Collapsible C and brings an end to your nonsense. Stone dead!
>>An Officer would only put back his watch to reflect ship's expected apparent noon the next day.<
An officer would put his watch back the same amount that the ship's clocks were put back (in two separate increments) in order to continue keeping proper watchkeeping time.
>>A passenger will not do that until he sees the ship's clocks adjusted) in the morning.<
Your claim is obviously not backed up by the stopped watches of many victims, which showed a wide range of times and proves that passengers were not locked into any specific time-adjustment procedure.
>>Rowe does not testify: "I wound back my watch." He does not do that and nobody testifies that. They say the ship's clocks were "due to go back" if they mention it.<
Rowe was performing his solitary duty on the docking bridge and had no reason *not* to put his watch back 23 minutes at the appointed time of midnight. (It was the *bridge* personel who were preoccupied with other matters and failed to adjust the *bridge* clock.)
> Funny that Murdoch should have to intervene on Collapsible C when it was Collapsible A that had no crewman in command!<
Are you *choosing* to ignore Lightoller's statement that Murdoch was at the falls of Collapsible A during the final moments? Since Murdoch was in the area of C, there is no reason he would not get involved in it, regardless of Wilde or anyone else being there.
>But how comfortable are we now with a construct that proceeds initially from three sequential assumptions<
Are you talking about mystery ships again? ;-)
>Pontificate<
Good word choice, Paul!
Bill
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Teri:
Our timeline has #2 and #4 leaving *before* Collapsible C. For details, see
http://home.comcast.net/%7Ebwormst/titanic/lifeboats/lifeboattable2.htm
We have a time frame of 20 minutes between #4 and D - just barely enough time, IMO, to load and launch. But given the fact that things were obviously getting desperate at that point, possible. I agree, 5 minutes would be a ridiculous time frame for this.
Our times are *launch* times. In our article, we say: "Given the testimonies themselves, it must be understood that any timings assigned to the lifeboats are only approximations. In most cases, accurate times cannot be determined, as even the witnesses themselves were not always in agreement as to how long an event took to occur or exactly when it happened. The times listed below are the present authors' best estimates of the times that the lifeboats *began* lowering away from the Titanic's decks."
Bill
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Teri posted the following list a while back - the passengers of Collapsible C. Added some information about any possible statements they may have made - however, Molony will discount them, as most are from those 'disreputable' newspaper accounts. But they do show *something* was going on at C - regardless of the accounts of those employed by White Star, and may not want to testify to any discord.
>>>
1)William Carter � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
Gave accounts in the NYT and Washington Times of shots fired.
2)Joseph Abraham � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
3)Gerios Assaf - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
I must assume that she means Maria Assaf, since Gerios died in the sinking. In press interviews Maria Assaf mentions shots fired and a panic, but not clear which boat she was referring too.
4)Eugenie Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 3 yrs old.
5)Helene Baclini � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 mos old.
6)Maria Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 5 yrs old.
7)Solomon Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
8)Emily Badman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
She was lead to Collapsible C by Edward Dorkings and another passenger who she did not name. According to the Jersey Journal, which recounts Dorkings having helped her, they had to push through crowds to get to the lifeboat.
9)Lee Bing - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
10)Aiyub Dahir - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 14 yrs old.
11)Margaret Devaney - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 18 yrs old.
12)Choong Foo - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 13 yrs old. Chinaman.
13)Frank Goldsmith - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
14)William Carter � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
15)Joseph Abraham � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
16)Gerios Assaf - not found in either Enquiry. No tesimony given.
17)Eugenie Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 3 yrs old.
18)Helene Baclini � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 mos old.
19)Maria Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 5 yrs old.
20)Solomon Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
21)Emily Badman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
22)Lee Bing - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
23)Aiyub Dahir - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 14 yrs old.
24)Margaret Devaney - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 18 yrs old.
25)Choong Foo - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 13 yrs old. Chinaman.
26)Mrs. Frank Goldsmith - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
27)Frank Goldsmith Jr. - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 yrs old.
We've already discussed the Goldsmith issue.
28)Ling Hee - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
29)May Howard � Found in British Enquiry.
Said the following which indicates some disorder at C: " One of the ships officers grabbed Mrs Goldsmith and myself and pushed us to the edge of the ship where the lifeboat was being filled with women and children. An officer there shouted, 'All men back, women come first.'"
The Orleans American and Weekly News, May 2 1912, pg 1
30)Abraham Hyman - not found in either Enquiry.
For some accounts, see http://home.comcast.net/%7Ebwormst/titanic/shots/shots.htm
However, it appears that Hyman may not have been in C at all.
31)Mary Joseph - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 2 yrs old.
32)Peter Joseph - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
33)Ali Lam - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
34)Gerios Moubarek - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.
35)Albert Pearcey � British Enquiry.
36)Albert Weikman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given, but affidavit given, and was printed in �The Ismay Line.�
Other accounts
-Mrs Mary Sophie Halaut Abrahim. In the Greensburg Herald-Tribune on April 22, 1912 gave accounts of panic while she was being placed in her boat. She was rescued in Collapsible C.
-Bjornstrom Steffanson gives an account in the NYT which confirms Woolner's account. He saw shots fired at a lifeboat being lowered before heading to the port side.
--Mrs George Joseph Whabee (Shawneene Abi-Saab), third class, The Sharon Herald, April 14, 1937: She was rescued in Collapsible C and said the following:
I saw George Joseph, [Gerious Youseff] one of my cousins. He pushed me toward one of the lifeboats. Sailors armed with revolvers drove the men away from the boats shouting, "Women and children first!". They shot into the air to frighten the men. Many passengers were overcome with fright."
-Amy Zillah Elsie Stanley, 3rd class
She gave a private account and mentions exactly the same thing as Woolner and Thayer, she does not mention being towed by Lifeboat # 14 or anything like that and indicates she did not see Rhoda Abbott until reaching the Carpathia, which further proves C instead of D.
Bill
|
Teri Lynn Milch
Member
Username: tmilch
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
If boat C left at 2:00am then theoretically speaking
boat #2 left at 2:05am
boat #4 left at 2:10am
boat #D left at 2:15am
boat #B left at 2:20am
boat #A left at 2:25am
My understanding is that the ship was completely submerged under water at 2:20am.
Wasn’t boat #B washed off just PRIOR to the ship going under the water?
If it is true that boat #B left at 2:20am, how is it that Officer Lightoller had time to unfasten boat #B, or at best, be next to boat #B if #B was submerged under water?
The boat times above are theoretical launch times. What about the boat’s loading times? Time was needed to actually load these boats. (and a few extra minutes and/or seconds was needed to load ladies carrying newborns and toddlers). Lightoller loaded AND launched boats #4 and #D. Is it possible he loaded AND launched both these boats in five minutes? I am finding that very difficult to believe, as boat #4 had 49 passengers in it. How could Lightoller load AND launch this boat carrying that many passengers in just five minutes? If I did my math correct, that would be 10 seconds per passenger to step into boat #4. I suppose that is possible, but what about launching the boat? Time was needed to get the boat down to the water.
Boat #D had 21 passengers. If this boat took 5 minutes to load, each passenger would have had only 4 seconds to step into the boat. Again, I suppose they could step into the boat in that time frame, but what about LAUNCHING the boat? Time was needed for the boat to descend to the water, and from what I have read, it is no easy task getting a full lifeboat to the water. The 5-minute theory just doesn’t come out to the math. It does make the 5-minute time frame look impossible.
Also, the Officers would need time to walk from lifeboat to lifeboat, unless the lifeboats were milliseconds away from each other, which is possible. The Officer would then finish loading and launching one boat then turn around and begin the work on the next.
My understanding is that it also takes time to deal with davits - - more loading time.
Are the historically named times, launch times or loading times?
launch - to put (a boat or ship) into the water; set afloat.
(taken from the American Heritage Student Dictionary)
load - to put something into or onto (a structure or vehicle): load a ship.
(taken from the American Heritage Student Dictionary)
If I proposed this all myself, I would propose the loading of the lifeboats began at about 12:10am. The ship struck the berg at 11:40pm, and after that, one half hour was used to assess her damage. I believe the loading began shortly after that.
Using this 12:10am start time, this would give all the lifeboats the time they needed to be unfastened, loaded, and then launched to the water. When talking about unfastening, loading and launching lifeboats, every second counts. Especially when on a sinking ship.
I forgot to factor in lost time (and who knows how much time was lost) due to those who refused to get into boats, those who argued with Officers over one thing or another, e.g. who will take charge, etc etc, and the scramble at boat #A. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 780
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
I try to engage with arguments here - but there is no attempt, on the other side, to engage with the TEN problem points for Woolner's evidence if the boat he is looking at is actually C.
There is a lot of strange stuff with Woolner. He says he and Steffanson left Boat D was it was about to lower, then went around to the mayhem on the starboard side.
There they saw Murdoch launch a charge, and "Steffanson and I went up to help to clear that boat," then the pair helped pull several men *apiece* ("We pulled out several, each" - "I should think five or six"), out of the collapsible, then "lifted in these
Italian women, hoisted them up on each side and put them into the boat."
Do you see all that?
Why the boy's a hero!
Six men out, first, then lifting, nay "hoisting," Italian women in, until "then that boat was finally filled up" and I said to Steffanson: "There is nothing more for us to do."
Amazing heroics! Uh... but Steffanson, ahem, doesn't say any of this...
Are you seeing my point at all, Paul? I know you are ignoring the ten other problems with the assumption that Woolner's collapsible is C, but do you see any frailty in attempting to build an argument on Woolner?
I'm sure the readership can.
So, anyway... there's Woolner. It certainly seems a long time since Boat D "was to be lowered away," which is why he crossed to starboard.
He's helped to clear a boat. He's hauled out five or six men (ever played rugby, Paul? Tried clearing a ruck?) - doesn't pause for breath, but hoists (ooh, me aching back) Italian women up into the boat, and then, when there is finally "nothing more to do," goes down to A deck.
Yeah, but... why on earth would he go down to A deck, where there are no boats, in the first place? A question that wasn't asked.
(Steffanson won't meet our eyes. He's going: "Don't look at me, Guv.")
So don't give me guff, Paul, about Woolner's evidence, about his water level. I'm just not with you on regarding Woolner as a golden jewel of clarity, for all the reasons I've pointed out.
You're the guy who's relying on Woolner, remember.
Oh yeah. How long did it take him to leave Boat D, cross over, witness shots, see charge, unload five or six men single handedly, replace them with Italian women, think about whether there was anything else he could help with, decide to go for a stroll with his pal below decks on a rapidly sinking ship - then, miraculously, meet up with the very boat he had left "about to lower" BEFORE he personally unpacked and re-packed a lifeboat.
Woolner: "Oh, quite a few minutes; a very few minutes."
Was Boat D really so slow in launching that Woolner (Oops, I see Steffanson sneaking out of the room with his collar up!) was able to perform all these heroics and STILL get into her?
No further questions, Mr Woolner. You can step down. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 781
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Bill says:
"I agreed with George's logic for 2 am" (claimed departure time of Boat C, instead of the 1.40am in the British report.)
He cites Woolner again about his starboard collapsible being swung out, but we know how strange and counter-indicated Woolner's evidence is.
If this is even accepted as a scrap, it is just one. Woolner does not see his collapsible lowered. We know Collapsible C was lowered - its occupants say in good order.
I am happy for this sole "reason for believing Woolner" to stand against the ten I listed earlier for disbelieving the ASSUMPTION (not made by Woolner himself) that he is talking about Collapsible C.
Bill claims that this "brings an end to your nonsense. Stone dead!" and I'll let the readership decide on that.
Back to Bill's agreement with George as to 2am (and not 1.40am) being the correct time for Collapsible C's departure, thereby putting Ismay in the eye of a storm.
This "correction" (for so it is called) is based on a series of assumptions:
1) Assuming Woolner is a credible witness on all points. (See last post).
2) Assuming Woolner is talking about Collapsible C, when his evidence better fits Collapsible A.
3) Assuming Officer Rowe put his watch back twenty minutes in Collapsible C.
4) Assuming the passenger in Collapsible C also put his watch back 20 minutes, for it is the passenger who says that C left at 1.40am, as relayed repeatedly by Pearcey.
All those four assumptions need to hold good for this "2am theory" to even get on its feet.
Rowe does not testify: "I wound back my watch." But you know what? I'm not going to assume that he doesn't.
It is certainly possible.
But look at what George says in his "Corrections to the commonly accepted version of the sequence in which the Titanic's lifebats etc etc" -
quote:"Quartermaster Rowe undoubtedly adjusted his watch..."
Undoubtedly? Admitting no possibility of doubt?
Rowe testified in America:
Rowe: "I felt a slight jar and looked at my watch. It was a fine night, and it was then 20 minutes to 12."
Hadn't put his watch back since the start of his watch then. Unless the collision with the iceberg was at midnight.
Okay, he might have put his watch back later, despite the distractions, but this is an assumption.
Rowe later testifies, again in America:
quote:Rowe: I assisted the officer to fire them (rockets), and was firing the distress signals until about five and twenty minutes after 1. At that time they were getting out the starboard collapsible boats. The chief officer, Wilde, wanted a sailor. I asked Capt. Smith if I should fire any more, and he said "No: get into that boat."
Get into Collapsible C at 1.25am says Wilde. Woolner only mentions Murdoch at his collapsible.
Rowe does not offer: "I should say, Senator, that I put my watch back twenty minutes some time after the iceberg collision. It was really 1.45am." (Still a long way from 2am though, isn't it?)
[Incidentally:
Senator Burton: Did you hear any revolver shots? -Rowe: No, sir.
Not very Woolnerish.]
So, given the assumption about Rowe, let it ride, and we have the passenger now in Boat C (not Rowe) who's telling everyone as it's leaving that it is 1.40am.
First of all, does Pearcey, who reports this, know the difference between Rowe and a passenger? Of course he does! He refers to the Quartermaster through his evidence:
10413. And some of the crew? — Five of the crew with the Quartermaster.
10414. Did that include yourself? — There were three Firemen, myself, and a Quartermaster.
So when he says a passenger had the watch, he means, ahem, yes, that a passenger had the watch.
10419. "I took notice of the passengers..."
If it was the QM who had the watch, he would have said “the Quartermaster,” as he does when specifying Rowe above. And below:
10494. What officer got into your boat? Was there any officer there? — Only a Quartermaster.
10495. There was no officer at all in your boat? — The Quartermaster.
George says in his "Corrections" book, and this is a quote:
quote:Since a man in Collapsible C said it was 1.40am as the boat was being rowed away, we must assume that this man's watch was also running 23 minutes slow.
That's a direct quote from page 4. You can see the words "assume" and "also" - two assumptions about men in the boat having watches that are behind the run-on time.
I don't know about you, but Woolner (see last post) is the basis for this construct (and not Woolner exactly, but Woolner interpreted) and now George Behe is saying that he has made two assumptions about the timepieces of people in the boat.
I'm getting quite worried about this 2am lark for Collapsible C...
Scenario: We're all in the boat. There's this passenger announcing that it is now 1.40am.
Nobody takes issue with him. There is no dispute. "Oh, but it's 2am by my watch!" Smug passenger in reply: "You may have been distracted by the iceberg and the sinking of this vessel, my dear.
"Those of us who know how important it is to have our timepieces adjusted so that they can reflect the next day's noon on a non-existent ship make sure to put first things first."
Rowe: "Well done that gentleman! There are so few passengers who will properly adjust their watches in an emergency. Bravo!"
Okay, those are our four assumptions to get to George's "correction."
Now we have to add some more:
5) Pearcey's own timings are wrong.
6) Weikman's timings are wrong.
PEARCEY
10384. What did you do then? — I went to the boat deck myself.
10385. What was the time then? — Between one and half-past. It was nearly half-past one.
10390. When you got to the boat-deck will you tell us what you saw? — I saw two babies on the deck; I picked them up in my arms and took them to the boat.
10391. Do you know what boat it was you took them to? — A collapsible boat.
He was told by an officer to “get inside with the babies and take charge of them.”
Pearcey's 1.30am agrees with the passenger who says the boat left at 1.40am.
The pantryman must also have adjusted himself, although, you know, it's strange - here's another guy who doesn't mention this in evidence.
But I suppose it "undoubtedly" happened.
WEIKMAN
"I was sitting in my barber shop on Sunday night, April 14, 1912, at 11.40pm, when the collision occurred."
Must have adjusted his watch later, eh? Yes, undoubtedly. Although he immediately starts rushing around (read his affidavit!) and "I helped to launch the boats."
To the meat:
quote:I saw Mr Ismay helping to load the boats.
Did you see him get in a boat?
Weikman - Yes; he got in along with Mr Carter, because there were no women in the vicinity of the boat. This boat was the last to leave, to the best of my knowledge. He was ordered into the boat by the Officer in charge. I think that Mr Ismay was justified in getting in that boat at that time.
And what time was that, my hair-clipping friend, who can work anywhere there are people, who is hardly beholden to Ismay?
quote:I was proceeding to launch the next boat when the ship suddenly sank at the bow and there was a rush of water that washed me overboard, and therefore the boat was not launched by human hands. (Collapsible A).
The men were trying to pull up the sides when the rush of water came, and that was the last moment it was possible to launch any more boats, because the ship was at an angle that it was impossible for anybody to remain on deck.
State further what you know about the case? After I was washed overboard I started to swim, when there was a pile of ropes fell upon me, and I managed to get clear of these and started to swim for some dark object in the water. It was dark. This was about 1.50am, toward the stern.
How do you know it was 1.50am?
Because my watch was stopped at that time by the water.
Here's another guy, Weikman, who supports Rowe's iceberg time, whose run-on time in turn supports Pearcey, whose timing itself supports the 1.40am statement of the man in Collapsible C...
So - six assumptions, thus far, (and all must hold good) to get us to the position where the 2am theory might be a runner for Collapsible C.
Assumptions stacked on top of each other like a house of cards. Built on an interpretation, merely, of Woolner.
I have more, of course. But this post is already too long. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1129
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
My god, Molony, you do go on and on don't you? (and on and on and on and on ......)
Some short comments to blow a few holes in your 'logic':
We've addressed the problems with Rowe's times before, no point in beating that dead horse anymore. We believe he reset his watch, you don't. If his times made sense in terms of the whole sinking and other documented evidence, we'd agree with them - but they don't. Rowe also did not say much about many things that happened that night - but obviously he saw and did things he didn't mention! Or don't you believe that either?
>Here's another guy, Weikman, who supports Rowe's iceberg time, whose run-on time in turn supports Pearcey, whose timing itself supports the 1.40am statement of the man in Collapsible C...
So, according to you, Weikman didn't adjust his watch that night and the bridge area actually submerged at 1:50 a.m. Isn't it strange, though, that the British Inquiry (whose timings you accept without the slightest reservation) claims that boat #4 was launched at 1:55 a.m. and that collapsible D was launched at 2:05 a.m. (both launchings taking place *after* the bridge area submerged????)
Since Weikman's apparent support of Pearcey is just coincidental, this means that Pearcey might just as easily have been mistaken about the times he quoted in his own testimony. Careful reading of the Inquires show that *many* people could not been correct with their times - they don't all agree with each other! The trick is not saying they can't be right, since someone disagrees - but trying to figure out what makes the most sense.
>I have more, of course. But this post is already too long.<
You're right, Senan. We ET members can only stomach a limited number of absurdities before we need to come up for a breath of fresh air. ;-)
And Senan - in case you don't know - almost EVERYONE agrees with Rowe's iceberg time! Including George and Tad and I. Don't you?
Moved to a wider focus (and ignoring Molony) for a bit:
Do I believe there could have been shots fired at C? Yes, there is evidence that indicates that may have happened. Do I also believe there could have been shots fired at A? Also yes! Assuming (oh my god, another assumption! Horrors!) someone fired shots around C (an officer perhaps?), to keep the crowd under control, I feel it is very likely the same person could have fired shots for the very same reason at A.
So it is *not* an 'either/or' situation at all, as Molony is trying to make us believe. Shots may have been fired at both!
Bill
|
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 784
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Bill says “I accept George’s logic.”
That’s what Bill says. He thinks George is being logical when he decides to “correct” the British Inquiry time of C’s departure from 1.40am to 2am.
Paul Lee accepts it as well. Because he says there was mayhem at C and Ismay was in the middle of it.
Never mind that the occupants of C don’t testify to anything of the kind, while plenty of those who were left behind do not mention any trouble at C and instead say, like Ismay, that there were no passengers around at the time of the departure.
Bill quotes one part of Rowe in support of his argument, but Bill says he believes there were shots at Collapsible C.
Rowe, who was there, says he didn't hear any shots.
We’ve seen the times given in evidence (my last post) which, on the face of them, clash with George.
Bill and Paul say I'm "pontificating" when I just point out that the witnesses say in 1912. They're pontificating. But George and Bill are just "correcting" the record. But undoubtdly!
They would like all the Titanic witnesses them to please all put their watches back, or fast-forward them to 2am, whichever is required at the time.
You sneer at Weikman, Bill, but you know what?
Weikman didn't just look at his watch. His watch was stopped by the water - after boat C had gone.
And his watch is STOPPED at 1.50am. I am sorry that doesn't suit your theory, sincerely.
We've seen the chain of witnesses lining up to, I suppose you would say, Bill, 'pontificate' against your selfless correction of the record.
Only one of those individuals has to be right about the time in order to destroy the 2am theory. Is it likely that they are all wrong in turn? The theory needs that to be the case.
I find your personal abuse interesting – it seems brought on by my expressing doubts about this theory, as if we should suspend all disbelief and just quietly accept your ponti"correction."
But I like the castigation – because it shows just how (I pause to choose a non-upsetting word) incautious certain people are in their acceptance of the theory over the evidence.
These are the ones who have painted themselves into a corner.
I’m not the one “correcting” the witnesses of 1912. I’m not saying “undoubtedly” about a theory... never mind the stunning irony that it’s positively groaning with doubt.
But I guess it's not nice to be trapped in a corner.
Now let's tickle-test this “2am theory” further, just to make you smile, Bill -
Consider this: Pearcey said it was 1.30am when he was ordered to Collapsible C by Chief Officer Wilde and the Captain. He gets in the boat, it’s lowered, and the passenger says that it is now 1.40am.
Pearcey says (10460/1) “I looked at the time.” Where did you look at the time? — “One of the passengers had the time.”
He looked at the guy’s watch. So Pearcey, if he had put his own time back twenty minutes, would realise that the passenger had put his watch back also… !
A most unusual occurrence.
But he doesn’t say this at the Inquiry. He doesn’t say (as Rowe doesn’t say): “Of course the real time was 2am, because I, the Quartermaster, and this gentlemen had all adjusted our watches or our time.”
How here’s another thing – Pearcey wasn’t wearing a watch. He had to look at the other guy’s. And yet Pearcey, with his 1.30am estimate (unless he has seen a clock elsewhere) is thereby putting the time back twenty minutes in his own head.
Would you, gentle reader, do that?
This is a pantryman. And we are talking about the next day’s ship’s noon, don’t forget.
How likely is this?
Is it as likely as someone flying to a holiday destination having their watch already set to local time on arrival, after a dodgy take-off and in the middle of some worrying turbulence – and then finding the person in the next seat has done the same?
Bill, you're straw-manning again. The readers can see that. I'm not trying to suggest shots were fired at both starboard collapsibles, and I haven't suggested that.
But I am posting you Rowe's evidence (Rowe, whom you liked a while back) that he heard no shots at Collapsible C. I haven't seen any evidence in favour of shots at this boat.
And don't worry Bill. You'll find I can go on and on and on - because there happens to be a mountain of evidence against your 2am theory! |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
You are just like that Celine Dion song, aren't you? On and on and on. Thank god I don't read most of it. I doubt many do read it. Doesn't matter anyway.
To be honest, though, Senan, I don't really care whether you believe our research is valid or not. We wrote our article for serious researchers who recognize a likely scenario when they see one, and we've received feedback and compliments from many well-known researchers whose opinions we value far more than yours. If you wish to believe that Collapsible C left the ship at 1:40, that the Titanic's bridge submerged at 1:50 and that the forward end of the boat deck was under water before Boat #4 and Collapsible D were launched, go right ahead and do so. (As for me, though, I have better things to do with my time than waste it listening to the kind of nonsense you've been coming up with in this thread.)
Bill
|
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 785
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
You're right about one thing Bill:
quote:serious researchers who recognize a likely scenario when they see one
And serious researchers also recognise a crock when they see one.
The Assumptions just keep on coming --
Those 2am assumptions so far –
1) Assuming Woolner is a credible witness on all points. (See last post).
2) Assuming Woolner is talking about Collapsible C, when his evidence better fits Collapsible A.
3) Assuming Officer Rowe put his watch back twenty minutes in Collapsible C.
4) Assuming the passenger in Collapsible C also put his watch back 20 minutes, for it is the passenger who says that C left at 1.40am, as relayed repeatedly by Pearcey.
5) Assuming Pearcey's own timings are wrong.
6) Assuming Weikman's timings are wrong.
Let’s see if we can get to Ten!
But first of all, let us remember that within all those assumptions are sub-sets of doubt (such as the ten problem points for Assumption 1). [See earlier post.]
Assumption Number 7: – Lightoller must be wrong.
Lightoller says
quote:(14766) —The last I remember seeing of Mr Wilde was quite a long time before the ship went down.
14767. And Mr Murdoch? — Mr Murdoch I saw practically at the actual moment that I went under water. 14768. He was then working at the forward fall, on the starboard side forward; that is the fall to connect to the collapsible boat.
We remember that Woolner, on whose rickety foundations Bill and George’s “2am theory” is constructed, only mentions Murdoch, as Lightoller confirms, at the collapsible boat (A).
Lights sees him there when he, Lights, jumps onto the roof of the Titanic officers’; quarters to launch the port collapsible (B), the other port collapsible (D) having already been readied.
So Lights is seeing Murdoch at the same time as Woolner, on the starboard side, and neither of them are seeing Chief Officer Wilde.
This is the end-time. This is the time of Woolner’s shots and swarming trouble. This is the time that Paul Lee says Ismay was present. In boat C, Bill telling us that it is 2am.
But ALL the Collapsible C occupants and relevant witnesses say their boat was launched by the Chief Officer – Pearcey, Weikman, Rowe, Ismay, etc.
Check 'em out... where's Wilde when Woolner and Lightoller are seeing Murdoch?
Answer - Not here, anyway.
Even though it was here that Chief Officer Wilde oversaw Collapsible C's departure ...and Collapsible C was long gone. As serious researchers know, because of the evidence.
This is the testimony of the men of 1912, Bill. They stand uncorrected. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
>But ALL the Collapsible C occupants and relevant witnesses say their boat was launched by the Chief Officer – Pearcey, Weikman, Rowe, Ismay, etc.<
So, what's your point? Yes, there is evidence that Wilde was there. There is also evidence Murdoch was there!
Boy talk about straw man! Sheesh!
Bill
|
Teri Lynn Milch
Member
Username: tmilch
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 2:26 am: |
|
Hi Bill,
I have given your theory a great benefit of the doubt, but I am sorry, for me there is just too much grain going against the supposed departure time of C leaving at 2:00am. THREE (possibly four, Quartermaster Bright’s testimony points to the 1:25 loading time for #C) people claiming the same time frame plus a watch stopping in the water is very sound, and causes me to conclude that boat C left in the vicinity of 1:30am.
I do not see any purpose for saying that people set their watches back. I think that is taking things a bit too far.
Just because Weikman’s watch stops doesn’t mean the ship sank at that time. As is the case with all sinking ships, a water level will continue to rise until the ship is completely covered, at which time it would submerge and then plunder. Weikman may well have set his arm/hand in water at any time during the ship’s sinking.
This is your matrix:
boat #2 left at 1:44am Wilde & Smith
boat #4 left at 1:50am Lightoller
boat #C left at 2:00 am Murdoch & Wilde
boat #D left at 2:05am Lightoller & Wilde
boat #A left at 2:15am Murdoch & Moody
boat #B left at 2:15am Lightoller (washed off)
I do not claim my matrix below to be accurate. I created it so that I could envision it in my own mind according to the testimonies I have read. A * indicates it is based on testimony.
boat #2 left at 12:50am Boxhall, Rowe, Bright Portside*
boat #4 left at 1:15am Lightoller Portside (had 49 people to load, loading took longer)
boat #C left at 1:25am Murdoch Starboard* (45 people)
boat #D left at 2:00am Lightoller Portside (had only 21 people to load, last boat to actually be loaded)
boat #B left at 2:20am Lightoller Portside – washed off, never loaded
boat #A left at 2:20am Starboard – washed off, never loaded
WEIKMAN: “This was about 1.50am, toward the stern.”
“How do you know it was 1.50am?”
“Because my watch was stopped at that time by the water.”
ROWE: “I assisted the officer to fire them (rockets), and was firing the distress signals until about five and twenty minutes after 1. At that time they were getting out the starboard collapsible boats. The chief officer, Wilde, wanted a sailor. I asked Capt. Smith if I should fire any more, and he said "No: get into that boat."”
PEARCEY: 10384. “What did you do then? - I went to the boat deck myself.”
10385. “What was the time then? - Between one and half-past. It was nearly half-past one.”
Quartermaster BRIGHT testimony:
Senator SMITH. And what did you do after that? I want you to tell, in your own way, just what you did after you dressed yourself.
Mr. BRIGHT. I went out to the after end of the ship to relieve the man I should have relieved at 12 o'clock, a man by the name of Rowe. We stood there for some moments and did not know exactly what to do, and rang the telephone up to the bridge and asked them what we should do. They told us to bring a box of detonators for them - signals. Each of us took a box to the bridge. When we got up there we were told to fire them - distress signals.
Senator SMITH. Who fired them?
Mr. BRIGHT. Rowe and I, and Mr. Boxhall, the fourth officer.
Senator SMITH. How long did you continue firing the rockets?
Mr. BRIGHT. Six were fired in all, I think.
Senator SMITH. One at a time.
Mr. BRIGHT. Yes, sir; at intervals.
Senator SMITH. At intervals of how long?
Mr. BRIGHT. I could not say. After we would fire one we would go and help clear the boats away, and then we would come back again.
Senator SMITH. This firing of rockets continued for some time, did it?
Mr. BRIGHT. I should say probably half an hour.
Senator SMITH. In the meantime were the Morse signals given?
Mr. BRIGHT. I could not say.
Senator SMITH. You could not see them?
Mr. BRIGHT. No, sir.
Senator SMITH. What color did these rockets that were fired show?
Mr. BRIGHT. I did not notice the color; but they burst after they got up in the air.
Senator SMITH. And then what colors were displayed?
Mr. BRIGHT. I did not look to see.
Senator SMITH. You say you went to the boats after that, or from time to time while this firing was going on. Did you assist in loading the boats?
Mr. BRIGHT. After we had finished firing the distress signals there were two boats left. I went and assisted to get out the starboard one; that is, the starboard collapsible boat. Rowe went away to help to get the other one out, and I went away myself.
Senator SMITH. Was the starboard collapsible boat forward?
Mr. BRIGHT. Close to the bridge, on the boat deck.
Senator SMITH. And on the starboard side?
Mr. BRIGHT. Yes.
Senator SMITH. Did you assist in loading that boat?
Mr. BRIGHT. I assisted to get it up.
Senator SMITH. You assisted to get it up in position?
Mr. BRIGHT. Yes.
Senator SMITH. Do you know the number of that boat?
Mr. BRIGHT. I could not say. As soon as the boat was up in place I was sent away to clear another one in place.
Senator SMITH. And you do not know who got into the boats - what members of the crew or passengers?
Mr. BRIGHT. I have only learned since, that Rowe, the man that was working with me, got into that boat. He was in charge of the boat, Rowe was. I was in charge of the other one.
Senator SMITH. You do not know how many people he had in it?
Mr. BRIGHT. Not in his boat; only my own.
Senator SMITH. And you do not know what proportions there were of men and women?
Mr. BRIGHT. I could not say, sir.
Senator SMITH. In this collapsible?
Mr. BRIGHT. No; that one. My own boat I know about.
Senator SMITH. Do you know whether Mr. Ismay was in Mr. Rowe's boat?
Mr. BRIGHT. I have learned so since; I could not say then.
Senator SMITH. That was a collapsible lifeboat forward?
Mr. BRIGHT. There were four collapsibles. That was one of them.
Senator SMITH. I understand. That was a collapsible lifeboat forward, on the starboard side?
Mr. BRIGHT. Close to the bridge; yes.
Senator SMITH. Where did you go after that? You went to this other boat; but where was it?
Mr. BRIGHT. I was on the opposite of the deck to what that was.
Senator SMITH. On the port side?
Mr. BRIGHT. On the port side, right forward, close to the bridge. |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 3:36 am: |
|
At the risk of starting a real "war," I must point out that you have to know the time reference of the individuals and/or timepieces. Everyone was not on the same civil time during the sinking. There were three different ship's civil times, New York time, Greenwich Mean Time, and a reference I call "crew bell time." Depending upon which ones are in use, there can be anything from 24 minutes to as much as 1:37 minutes difference between the "times" for a single event.
Let me illustrate with five different stopped personal timepieces: Weikman, March, Norman, Gracie, and Thayer. Of these individuals Norman and March did not survive. Here are the people and the times their pocket watches stopped.
Weikman 1:50
March 1:27
Gracie 2:22
Thayer 2:22
Norman 3:07
Gracie and Thayer were obviously on the same time reference. The colonel was washed over by a wave at about the same moment as Thayer was jumping into the ocean. Both of their watches stopped at 2:22 a.m. using April 14th Civil Time.
Norman's watch is the easiest of the odd stopping times to "dope out." He obviously was confused about the overnight time change of 47 minutes. Instead of retarding his watch, Norman advanced it. This had the net effect of putting it on April 13th Civil Time. Subtracting 47 minutes gives an April 14th Civil Tim for the stopping of Norman's watch at 2:20 a.m.
March and Weikman's timepieces stopped at the same instant, 2:14 a.m. in April 14th Civil Time. With March it is obvious that he correctly retarded his watch the 47 minutes of the setback that night. Weikman was on what I call "crew bell time" some 24 minutes retarded from April 14th Civil time. So, 2:14 in April 14th time was 1:50 on the bell clock, or 1:27 in April 15th time; and all were equivalent of 0512 hrs GMT or 12:12 a.m. in New York.
The bottom line is that any attempt to put events in chronological order is meaningless unless you first establish a baseline time reference and then convert all of the stated times contained in the testimonies to the baseline reference. This can take hours for each person's testimonies, so few researchers choose to go through the work. The results, however, can be surprising.
For example, unless you understand all of the different time relationships, it becomes impossible to understand how lifeboats could be launched at 2 a.m. or later when Stewardess Annie Robinson noted that Titanic sank at 1:40 a.m. on her watch.
As I say, there is no magic in all of this, just lots of frustrating, hard work. Sam and I have been arguing time for two years now and have not come to anything close to a final conclusion that both can accept. The process is much more difficult than it might appear because it involves sometimes dozens of cross reference checks. (Sam can argue as forcefully against my "bell time" as I argue for it, but that is not the point here.)
However, unless the participants go through the process for each lifeboat, any attempt at comparison of launch times is little more than gibberish. Sorry, but you can't come to any conclusions without getting the facts straight.
-- David G. Brown |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 790
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
You are entirely right, David. It is the height of folly to attempt to "corrections" as to new times of departure.
This is not to say that the British times are accurate. They are merely indicative. But modern researchers with their "undoubtedlys" in this area are getting their fingers burned, as seen on this thread. Because they are playing with fire.
That is why I speak of "end-time" in relation to what Woolner is talking about. End-time is panic at the last starboard collapsible. Many observers testify to this. It is not actual time-specific. There may be shots.
It is decided by George Behe - and he doesn't give any reason AT ALL - that Woolner is seeing C as the last starboard collapsible.
Lightoller, as I have posted, is looking at this collapsible at the same time. He mentions that Wilde is long gone - but Wilde launched C, as its occupants all say. Therefore C is long gone. Therefore this last starboard collapsible is not C.
I have posted a mountain of contra-indications for the choice of C as the boat Woolner is looking at. One of the people thus painted into a corner appears to have walked away with sticky stuff on the soles of his feet, but absolutely no-one has offered a reason why Woolner should be seeing C instead of the logical A.
It is George Behe who created this mad construct of Ismay and his boat, C, being around at the end-time. Bill W says he agrees with that "logic" even though it is contradicted by dozens of observers.
I'm going to give another example of the sheer unlikelihood of the 2am theory. I believe I can go on indefinitely, but if the point is made, I'll stop.
The knock-on effects of the 2am theory for C are bizarre. They ripple all the way backwards, as well as forwards and sideways.
Make this Assumption No. 8 - that George Symons is wrong, as well as "orderly" Bright, posted by Teri:
AB George Symons says (11453) he went to No 1 boat. George Behe, as revised and approved by Bill W, leave this time to stand as given - ie, 1.10am.
Symons said he jumped in "because there
were no passengers around the deck at that time," adding immiediately afterwards: "Other members of the crew were assisting in getting the cover off of the surf boat lying under the emergency boat [that is, Collapsible C) - she had been in her place, if she was swung in."
Symons goes on:
11460 Now why did he order the boat to be lowered away while it was not full? — Because, I suppose, he had looked around the deck for other people, as well as I did myself, and there was not another passenger in sight, only just the remainder of the crew getting the surf boat ready. (Collapsible C!)
There they are, uncovering Collapsible C, at the time Boat 1 goes away. Which is said to be 1.10am.
No mention of anyone putting their watches back twenty minutes here, eh? If they did, it would be ten minutes to twelve.
So they uncover it at 1.10am, but they don’t launch it until 2am... nearly an hour later ...strange ...why the delay with C, lads?
Sheer folly! |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Teri:
Extra data on the officers:
#2 - No argument on Bright being at #2, though he wasn't the person usually mentioned as loading. Wilde was mentioned by Boxhall on US pg. 246. Both Wilde and Smith mentioned on US pg. 241.
#C - Wilde mentioned at US. pg 519 by Rowe.
#D - Steward Hardy mentions the Chief Officer US pg. 588. Lightoller mentions Wilde by name in his book.
One thing I will mention about the watches - and this is definitely just an opinion. Did Weikman's (or anyone's) watch stop THE MINUTE it hit the water? Or maybe 5 or 10 or 20 minutes later? I just don't know, depends on the watch itself, I would think. We also have the situation where Weikman (toward the bow) was in the water maybe 5 minutes before the stern went under. All things that could affect the times, which way, who can tell?
>It is decided by George Behe - and he doesn't give any reason AT ALL - that Woolner is seeing C as the last starboard collapsible.<
Senan - wake up and read more carefully! C was *swung out*, A was not. Woolner described a swung out collapsible. How many times do we have to say it before you remember it?
As far as the delay in launching C - simplest thing in the world. The officers who were responsible for *launching* the boats *moved on* to launch *other* lifeboats while C was being hooked up to the falls and prepared for launching. *No* lifeboat was launched without an officer being there to superintend that launching, and if you'll refer to our article you'll see that Murdoch and Wilde were tied up at other lifeboats until they were able to return to C shortly before 2 a.m.
Bill
|
Henry Loscher
Member
Username: henry_loscher
Post Number: 44
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
> Bill, If you were in a crowd of people and asked them to look at their watches and tell you what the time is, I bet you dollars to doughnuts that you would get quite a variance in the times given. And most of the watches now are quartz. I would venture a speculation that watches today are more accurate then the watches in 1912. So, I wouldn't place all that much credence to the times given in the various accounts. To treat them as sacrosanct seems to me to be a mistake.
Regards, Henry |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 7:43 pm: |
|
I agree 100%, Henry.
Which is why our article says
"Given the testimonies themselves, it must be understood that any timings assigned to the lifeboats are only approximations. In most cases, accurate times cannot be determined, as even the witnesses themselves were not always in agreement as to how long an event took to occur or exactly when it happened."
All any of us can do, is our best approximations. The sequence of events is more important than the 'absolute' times.
Bill
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 873
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 12:24 am: |
|
Dave Brown said:
"The bottom line is that any attempt to put events in chronological order is meaningless unless you first establish a baseline time reference and then convert all of the stated times contained in the testimonies to the baseline reference."
Dave and I are in full agreement on this point. There really were three time references being kept by people that night. To put it in simple terms, some were on Apr 14 time, some already on Apr 15 time, and some should I say halfway between the two, what Dave Brown likes to call "bell time."
Clocks keeping what is usually called Apparent Time Ship (ATS) on the Titanic had been adjusted at midnight Apr 13/14 so that at local apparent noon on Apr 14th they would read 12:00. A slight correction (maybe a minute at most) may have been made in the forenoon after a sun line sight would have been taken to check their longitude so as to make the clock accurate when the sun crossed their local meridian at noon. (See Pitman's testimony at American Inquiry.) For midnight Apr 14/15 the clocks were scheduled to go back by 47 minutes so that they would read 12:00 at local apparent noon the following day, Apr 15th. For the crew, however, they were going to effect this 47 minute adjustment in a two step process, retarding the clock by 23 minutes for the First watch (normally from 8 PM to 12 AM) and 24 minutes for the Middle Watch (normally from 12 AM to 4 AM), thus adding 23 to 24 minutes to the usual 4 hours for each watch section.
In a letter to Ed Kamuda of the THS in 1963 QM George Rowe wrote "My watch should have ended at 12:22 but time went by and no relief turned up." As we have seen from a post above, Rowe's relief, QM Bright, had said: "I went out to the after end of the ship to relieve the man I should have relieved at 12 o'clock, a man by the name of Rowe." Notice the two different time references being used to describe the same event, the time of the expected change of watch. On an unadjusted clock keeping Apr 14th time the change was supposed to be about 23 minutes after 12:00 (Rowe said 22, Fleet said about 20, Hichens said 23). On a clock (or pocketwatch) that was set back for this change of watch, the time of the change would be when the clock struck 12:00.
For passengers it appears the clock change was scheduled as a single adjustment at midnight. A number of male passengers stayed up late in the smoking room on purpose to wait for the midnight adjustment so they could set their personal watches to the correct ship’s time. (This adjustment was done from the bridge by adjusting the master clock located in the chartroom.) Mr. Algernon Henry Wilson Barkworth was one of them:
"I was discussing in the smoking room with them late on Sunday night the science of good road building in which I am keenly interested. I was going down, but somebody said they were going to set back the clock at midnight, and I stayed on as I wanted to set my watch. When the crash came somebody said we had hit an iceberg, but I didn't see it."
Others in the smoking room, like Spencer Silverthorne, was reading a book when the crash came:
"At 20 minutes of twelve I sat reading when I felt a jar which shook me in my seat but which was not nearly as severe as one would suppose for the damage which was done."
On the night of Apr 14th the clocks were not yet adjusted at the time the crash came at 11:40 PM ATS Apr 14th, at least those in the public rooms via the master clock in the chart room. However, some people did not wait to adjust there own pocket watches. Some would have set there clocks back by 22 to 23 minutes so the expected change of watch would happen when their watch struck 12:00. Others, like Anni Robinson, had adjusted her watch back by the expected full 47 minutes as Dave had alluded to above. So we had time pieces set all over the place. And to make matters worse, there were a few people who never adjusted their personal watch the 46 minutes from the previous night like Mrs. Eleanor Cassebeer who had her watch first adjusted at dinner time on the 14th by the Purser, and like postal clerk John March who apparently failed to adjust his pocketwatch at all thus explaining the stopped time that it registered.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 791
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Bill,
You rely again on Woolner's evidence - which is full of holes - for YOUR 2am theory in regards to Collapsible C being Woolner's starboard collapsible.
You say:
>>"C was *swung out*, A was not. Woolner described a swung out collapsible. How many times do we have to say it before you remember it?"<<
Again you are being certain, Bill. You are certain in your undoubtedlys that because Woolner says it, it must be true.
I will address your certainty that A was not swung out.
The readership sees, again and again, that the arguments are only being addressed by one side in this debate.
You WILL NOT address the 10 counter indications against Woolner and the eight or nine (actually I've got another few here) who must be wrong if Woolner is right, and that is LEAVING OUT all the people who were in C and say there wasn't any end-time mayhem as you suggest!
I've shown you, separately, that Woolner's evidence is a very tall story and you still want me to accept Woolner!
I'm not going to do that - you have put all your eggs in the one basket (Woolner) - and he is not reliable.
How much EVIDENCE Bill (not you just saying what you believe, over and over) do you need before you question Woolner?
There is an important point to grasp about the end-time Bill... when you say Collapsible C was there, being swung out (because you believe Woolner).
It was "swung out" over the starboard side, you say... yet the Titanic had a huge list to port.
We have Woolner *hoisting* Italian women into this boat - he and Steffanson (who doesn't say any of this) had to help Murdoch, the only officer Woolner mentions - and they managed to get it swung out? Against the portside list?
Lightoller, Brown and many others say Murdoch was attempting to hook up the last starboard collapsible to the falls.
Maybe they did get it outwards in some form, despite the fact many observers at the end time (YOU and GEORGE say 2am for Collapsible C, remember, Bill) say the starboard collapsible was swamped, washed off, or "not launched by human hands."
Meanwhile Weikman, Pearcey, Brown, Ismay, Rowe, all the occupants of C and lots of others I chronicled above - that you hate to be reminded about - are all saying C left in good time and in good order.
If Murdoch managed to get 'out' A (and the paucity of evidence about A - and resultant inherent contradictions - does not allow you to run from pillar to post to suggest C instead, and base it all on one guy!) - then it was indeed a superhuman achievement.
But think about this.
While I wasn't there, YOU claim to be certain that A "wasn't swung out"... yet Samuel Hemming, who stayed with the ship to the last, says this:
quote:Mr Hemming: After I had finished with the lamps, sir, when I made my last journey they
were turning out the port collapsible boat (D).
I went and assisted Mr Lightoller to get it out.
After the boat was out (Woolner's time!) I went on top of the officer's house and helped to clear away the port collapsible boat (B) on that house.
After that I went over to the starboard side. The starboard collapsible boat had just been lowered.
See that, Bill? If it was lowered it was a superhuman achievement! That's even better than swung out.
If you are telling me that Hemming is talking rubbish, then why shouldn't Woolner be talking rubbish about the same boat being swung out?
Senator Smith clarifies:
Senator Smith: Do you mean lowered or pushed off?
Mr Hemming: Lowered. She was away from the ship.
Now don't tell me he's talking about C, Bill, because it's the end-time, he's on top of the officers' quarters with Lightoller, and there is no starboard collapsible there or anywhere.
Hemming says the starboard side is completely clear.
So again, Bill, beware of your own bald statements of certainty.
Everyone here can see your certainties and your failure to relinquish Woolner because you would rather live in 2am theoryland than deal with the mountain of testimony against your idea.
Remember Walter Lord's admonition of the dangers of setting yourself up - with your 2am theory, sorry, "Correction" for Collapsible C - as the "final arbiter of what happened on the night the Titanic went down." |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 792
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Here's another, and absolutely classic, example of 2am Bill's many simple “certainties” -
quote:"Mrs. Goldsmith said that the four Chinese stowaways were in her lifeboat and that they refused to get out when the officer fired his gun. Needless to say, the four Chinese stowaways were in Collapsible C along with Ismay. As an aside, Mrs. Goldsmith also refers to the gunfire at C."
Bill is using the idea of Chinese stowaways, reported in a press account of Mrs Goldsmith, as justification for the belief that she was in Collapsible C.
This interpretation of her also becomes the basis for believing there was also shooting there, at C, (when the testimony from the occupants of C, such as Rowe, is all against it.)
I have previously posted the Goldsmith family's own certainty, expressed by Frank Goldsmith Jr in the first place (who was actually aboard his own lifeboat, unlike Bill W), a grandson, and others who posted to this board, that the Goldsmiths left in D. Not C.
Bill thinks there were Chinese stowaways only in C.
But lo, and behold, there were stowaways in D - the boat the Goldsmith family says they were in.
And these stowaways were - Chinese!
quote:LIGHTOLLER
talking about Boat D
14001. Ultimately she was filled with women, the collapsible boat (D)? — Yes, I believe it was a new boat, where a couple of Phillipinos or Chinese got in; they stowed away under the thwarts or something.
But for that there were no men except crew—except the men I ordered in.
14011. (The Commissioner.) Do you mean she was the last boat to leave the ship from the port side? — The last boat launched from the port side. There was still one on the top of the quarters (B), but she was not launched, as a matter of fact.
But Bill is just so CERTAIN.
1) He knows Woolner is talking about C, when Woolner himself doesn't know...
2) He knows what boat the Goldsmiths were in, no matter what they themselves believe.
3) And he is certain that there were Chinese stowaways only in C.
But - he - just - doesn't - know - the - evidence.
Lightoller is supported by Lucas (1577) about foreign stowaways in D, and indeed Lightoller says it again separately. There is further corroboration I could post, but the point is made.
Lightoller fired shots at D (that is widely attested to, although Lights kept quiet) - so there is your gunfire for Mrs Goldsmith, Bill.
An example is Gracie:
quote:Gracie "...some of the steerage passengers tried to rush the boat (D), and he (Lightoller) fired off a pistol to make them get out, and they did get out.
Senator Smith: Who fired that pistol?
Gracie: Lightoller. That is what he told me. He is the Second Officer.
Senator Smith: Are you sure it was not Murdoch?
Gracie: I am sure it was not Murdoch. [on starboard side at end]
Smith: Or Lowe?
Gracie: I am sure it was not. That is what Mr Lightoller himself told me.
So, Bill, are you still undoubtedly certain the Goldsmiths were in C?
Did Mrs Goldsmith ever say she was in C, or did she just say “the last boat” ?
Did she or any Goldsmith ever say they were in with Ismay?
No, they flaming well did not!
And please tell us, Bill, just what is George Behe's logic for deciding that Woolner was looking at Collapsible C?
You have stated here (people can check back) that you “agree with his logic.” Do you even know what George Behe’s "logic" is in this matter?
Do ask him. It could open up huge new avenues for me,
Meanwhile I've got another half dozen people ready to put even more holes in the theory.
And remember, despite the variations in times, only ONE of the several times given by witnesses deployed against your 2am argument has to be right in order for your whole argument to fall. Only one.
Not that you have an argument. Because your certainties are all a sorry shambles.
And the readership can see it. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 877
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 12:53 am: |
|
Need to make a correction to what I posted above. I should have said 2nd class passenger Robert Norman, NOT postal clerk John March, who failed to adjust their watch back the previous night on Apr 13. The pocket watch recovered on Norman's body was stopped at 3:07. John March's watch stopped at 1:27. Apparently John March had set his pocket watch back earlier in the evening so it would agree with ship’s time when the morning came. Add 47 minutes to 1:27 and you have 2:14, about the time that induced wave swept so many overboard.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 8:31 pm: |
|
Senan would lead us to believe that Mrs. Goldsmith's account of the four oriental stowaways in her boat does not support her being in Collapsible C, because of the statement Lightoller made in the inquiries about oriental stowaways in Collapsible D (posted below). Now, as we all know, Lightoller was not rescued in Collapsible D, so he may have been told that there were Chinese or Phillipinos hiding in it afterwards. Surely, if he had noticed them hiding under the seats firsthand while loading it, he would have hauled them out as he did with other men who tried to sneak in ahead of women and children that night. Lightoller could not have been correct on this point. Here is the list of the oriental passengers aboard the Titanic and their fates:
Mr Chang Chip- survived
Mr Choong Foo- survived
Mr Ling Hee- survived
Mr Ali Lam -survived
Mr Len Lam- died
Mr Fang Lang- rescued from the water by Fifth Officer Lowe in Lifeboat # 14
Mr Lee Ling- died
Mr Masabumi Hosono - survived, probably the Japanese passenger mentioned by Frederick Dent Ray as having been in Lifeboat # 13.
Six survivors total, only four of the oriental passengers who survived are unaccounted for in other boats. Even if you debate the identity of the oriental survivor rescued by Lowe, the testimony about an oriental man being plucked from the water is there, as is the evidence of one being in Lifeboat # 13. That accounts for 2 of the oriental survivors, leaving just 4 to be accounted for.
Now, we know that Mrs. Goldsmith specifically mentions four having been in her Collapsible, hiding under the seats. Senan would have us believe that this supports her being rescued in Collapsible D due to the following from Lightoller:
"14001 Ultimately she was filled with women, the collapsible boat?
Yes, I believe it was a new boat, where a couple of Phillipinos or Chinese got in, they stowed away under the thwarts or something. But for that there were no men except crew - except the men I ordered in. "
However, not a single other person mentions oriental stowaways in Collapsible D, and in fact, Mrs. Goldsmith's account further supports that she was in Collapsible C, and thus her son was too, and therefore the shooting incident mentioned was at that boat, not D.
Quartermaster Rowe, whose testimony Senan is so fond of referencing regarding the lack of panic at Collapsible C, specifically mentions the four unaccounted for oriental passengers just as Mrs. Goldsmith does, and we know for certain that Rowe was rescued in Collapsible C.
Senate Inquiry:
"Senator BURTON. The passengers, aside from your sailors, were all women and children?
Mr. ROWE. Except Mr. Ismay and another gentleman. When daylight broke, we found four men, Chinamen, I think they were, or Filipinos.
Senator BURTON. Were those additional to the 39?
Mr. ROWE. Yes, sir.
Senator BURTON. All the rest of the 39 were women and children, except two, Mr. Ismay and another gentleman?
Mr. ROWE. Yes, sir.
Senator BURTON. When day broke, you found four Chinamen or Filipinos under the seats?
Mr. ROWE. Not under the seats then, sir. They came up between the seats. "
And again at the Board of Trade Inquiry:
"17646. And the rest of the people were what?
What I thought were women and children.
17647. Did they prove to be women and children? -
No, not at daybreak.
17648. Why? Tell us about that? -
I found four Chinamen aboard.
17649. Where were they? -
I could not see at the time.
17650. They were in the boat somewhere? -
They were in there at daybreak.
17651. How they got in you do not know, I suppose? -
No.
17652. (The Commissioner.) Were they all women and children, with the exception of three Chinamen? -
Four Chinamen and Mr. Ismay and Mr. Carter.
17653. I have two male passengers. Were the rest all women and children with the exception of the crew and the four Chinamen?
And the two gentlemen."
And Ismay mentions the same thing. He is another witness whose testimony Senan so often references:
Senate Inquiry.
"Senator FLETCHER. How many men were in the boat?
Mr. ISMAY. Three - four. We found four Chinamen stowed away under the thwarts after we got away. I think they were Filipinos, perhaps. There were four of them.
Board of Trade Inquiry.
18563.Am I right, then, in this, that there were women and children and some members of the crew to man the boat and two passengers, yourself and Mr. Carter?
Yes, and four Chinamen were in the boat.
18564.Four Chinamen who, we have heard, were discovered after the boat was lowered?
Yes. "
So Senan, you believe that there were four other oriental passengers who hid under the seats in Collapsible D, in addition to the four who the witnesses you consider so reliable definitively state were hiding under the seats in Collapsible C? There were only 6 oriental survivors, two of which were in other boats according to Ray and Lowe, leaving only four, which the testimony soundly place in Collapsible C. Now, since there is so much evidence indicating they were under the seats in Collapsible C, where did these four other mysterious oriental stowaways in Collapsible D (the number specifically mentioned by Mrs. Goldsmith in two separate interviews, and you readily accept she was in D) that you believe existed come from? Did your mystery ship drop them off on the Titanic during the night? Even if Mrs. Goldsmith had mentioned just one oriental stowaway in her lifeboat instead of four or if Lightoller had mentioned just one, this is not possible since all 6 oriental survivors are accounted for in other boats. Either Mrs. Goldsmith was in Collapsible C where we know there were four oriental stowaways, or Lightoller was mistaken about there being oriental stowaways in Collapsible D, which renders your point moot. Which is it? |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 9:27 pm: |
|
Interesting Senan, how you continue to dovetail the evidence that you can't ignore such as Woolner to fit your theory, and ignore entirely that which does not fit your opinion of there being no commotion at Collapsible C.
You still have not addressed the other accounts in addition to Woolner and Thayer which mention a commotion at Collapsible C. Just to recap, William Carter gave accounts mentioning a commotion at C and Maria Assaf indicates gunfire although I will concede that it is not certain that she is referring to C. Emily Badman stated that she was lead to Collapsible C by Edward Dorkings and another passenger who she did not name. She states that they had to push through crowds to get to the lifeboat. This certainly doesn't fit with the idea of no one being around Collapsible C when it was loaded now does it? May Howard stated that she had to be pushed through a crowd to the boat and that the officer had to tell the men to stay back and the women to come forward. Mrs Mary Sophie Halaut Abrahim gave accounts of panic while she was being placed in her boat. She was rescued in Collapsible C. Mrs George Joseph Whabee (Shawneene Abi-Saab), third class, who was rescued in Collapsible C stated the following:
"I saw George Joseph, [Gerious Youseff] one of my cousins. He pushed me toward one of the lifeboats. Sailors armed with revolvers drove the men away from the boats shouting, "Women and children first!". They shot into the air to frighten the men. Many passengers were overcome with fright."
You also choose to ignore Amy Stanley's private account which states the following:
"As we were being lowered a man about 16 stone jumped into the boat almost on top of me. I heard a pistol fired-I believe it was done to frighten the men from rushing the boat. "
The evidence that Amy Stanley was saved in Collapsible C is solid. According to information from her family which can be found online, after going on deck with Virginia Emanuel and Elizabeth Dowdell who were saved aboard Lifeboat # 13 (they confirm this in their own accounts), two men she knew helped her into a starboard Collapsible. Since there were only two starboard Collapsibles and only one woman survivor in A, we can surmise which boat she was talking about. Further evidence: she does not mention being towed by Lifeboat # 14 or anything like that and indicates she did not see Rhoda Abbott until reaching the Carpathia, which further proves C instead of D.
"So again, Bill, beware of your own bald statements of certainty. "
Now who is it that is making bald statements of certainty?"
"I will address your certainty that A was not swung out. "
And then:
"Maybe they did get it outwards in some form, despite the fact many observers at the end time (YOU and GEORGE say 2am for Collapsible C, remember, Bill) say the starboard collapsible was swamped, washed off, or "not launched by human hands."
We await your address on this point. You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that indicates Collapsible A was swung out. Lack of evidence does not prove a point, and in fact, every scrap of evidence in the inquiry or elsewhere that specifically addresses how Collapsible A got free runs counter to your point. You admit as much in your post. In fact, the forensic evidence disagrees as well, since the davits remain in the cranked in position on the wrecksite to this very day. It is necessary for you to prove that Collapsible A was swung out to discredit Woolner's account, and you have failed to do so. If Collapsible A was not swung out, then Woolner is referring to Collapsible C. According to the scenario you would have the readers believe, the officers would have had to of gone through the trouble of successfully swinging out and lowering Collapsible A level to the deck, against the list, loading it, then for no apparent reason, raising the loaded boat and swinging it back in onto the deck again, where it had to be cut free, all without a single witness having witnessed this happening. You are stretching the facts here almost as far as the Olympic-Titanic switch conspiracy believers. I suggest you re-read Steward Brown's account of how Collapsible A was freed, it shows how ludicrous your idea is.
Again, for the benefit or readers, here is Woolner's testimony which indicates Collapsible C was swung out and lowered, unlike Collapsible A, which despite Senan's frustration about, was not swung out:
"I got hold of them by their feet and legs. Then they cleared out, practically all the men, out of that boat, and then we lifted in these Italian women, hoisted them up on each side and put them into the boat. They were very limp. They had not much spring in them at all. *Then that boat was finally filled up and swung out*, and then I said to Steffanson: "There is nothing more for us to do. Let us go down onto A deck again."
Senan wrote:
"You WILL NOT address the 10 counter indications against Woolner and the eight or nine (actually I've got another few here) who must be wrong if Woolner is right, and that is LEAVING OUT all the people who were in C and say there wasn't any end-time mayhem as you suggest!"
We have addressed this several times already for the readers, but you have chosen to ignore it. The numbers you indicate are far from accurate, as already illustrated many besides Woolner mention disorder at Collapsible C. There are more accounts I can post than the ones I already have, but these posts are already long enough as is. Here's a question for you, how many of the witnesses you keep touting are not White Star Line employees? Compare that to those who indicate that there was disorder and I think you'll see a trend. Those that indicated there was disorder or shots at Collapsible C tended to be passengers and those who tended to deny it were crewmembers. I wonder why that might be? There is one notable exception, Harry Senior, who stated that First Officer Murdoch fired shots over the heads of men who jumped in the last collapsible boat on the starboard side as it was being lowered, but this was in the press and not in inquiry testimony.
You say:
"It was "swung out" over the starboard side, you say... yet the Titanic had a huge list to port."
And then:
"We have Woolner *hoisting* Italian women into this boat - he and Steffanson (who doesn't say any of this) had to help Murdoch, the only officer Woolner mentions - and they managed to get it swung out? Against the portside list?"
And your point is? Collapsible C had to be swung out to be launched the way it was regardless of whether there was a list or not, and Rowe indicates the list was not severe until Collapsible C was *lowered*, not while it was being loaded. Your statement about the timing is meaningless. We know that Collapsible C was lowered away while there was a fairly severe list to port. Rowe himself states that (see below), so thank you for proving our point:
"Senator BURTON. Did she at any time list over to starboard or port?
Mr. ROWE. SHE DID NOT LIST, SO FAR AS I KNOW, UNTIL THE TIME WHEN MY BOAT WAS LOWERED. Then she listed to port. She listed about 5 or 6 degrees.
Senator BURTON. To port?
Mr. ROWE. Yes, sir.
Senator BURTON. What side was your boat on?
Mr. ROWE. The starboard side, sir. All the time my boat was being lowered the rubbing strake kept on catching on the rivets down the ship's side, and it was as much as we could do to keep her off."
While we're speaking of Rowe, you keep ignoring that he testified that Collapsible C left around twenty minutes before the ship sank and that Ismay said 10. Both of those times are at or closer to a 2:00 launch time rather than the 1:40 inquiry time. Rowe even indicates that the forward well-deck was submerged which meshes with what Woolner said regarding A-Deck flooding right after Steffanson and he left the area. This further indicates how late Collapsible C left. Speaking of Steffanson, your broad statement about his account not agreeing with Woolner is incorrect. In the NYT he gave an interview that mentions shots fired at the Collapsible they helped load. But since you seem to be so sure of your opinion and that you are absolutely right and everyone else is wrong, I'm sure that you have already seen this account but forgot about it or chose to ignore it.
Back to the other accounts. Since you have brushed off Thayer's version of events, here it is for the benefit of the readers:
"There was some disturbance in loading the last two forward starboard boats. A large crowd of men was pressing to get into them. No women were around as far as I could see. I saw Ismay, who had been assisting in the loading of the last boat, push his way into it. It was really every man for himself. Many of the crew and men from the stokehole were lined up, with apparently not a thought of attempting to get into a boat without orders. Purser H. W. McElroy, as brave and as fine a man as ever lived, was standing up in the *next to last boat*, loading it. Two men, I think they were dining-room stewards, dropped into the boat from the deck above. As they jumped *he fired twice into the air.* I do not believe they were hit, but they were quickly thrown out. McElroy did not take a boat and was not saved."
Thayer clearly indicated that the shots were fired at the next to last boat, which was Collapsible C. He also mentions a large crowd around the boat, consistent with Woolner and Stanley. And in case you want to throw out Thayer's account because it was published quite some time after the sinking, he mentioned exactly the same thing right after the disaster and in the 20s in an interview. You can find these by looking through the New York papers.
"How much EVIDENCE Bill (not you just saying what you believe, over and over) do you need before you question Woolner?"
I would begin to ask the opposite, how much EVIDENCE is needed before you begin to question your opinion that the matter is so cut- and-dried?
"Remember Walter Lord's admonition of the dangers of setting yourself up - with your 2am theory, sorry, "Correction" for Collapsible C - as the "final arbiter of what happened on the night the Titanic went down."
You would be wise to do the same. The way you act out whenever anybody here disagrees or holds an opinion differing from yours displays for everyone that you consider yourself the "final arbiter." We on the other hand, are not so brazen. That's why we prefaced our article by saying that the exact and specific launch times can never be known with 100% certainty.
"The readership sees, again and again, that the arguments are only being addressed by one side in this debate."
That's right Senan, the readership sees "again and again," just not what you think it does. If you want to accuse someone of addressing only one side of the argument, try looking in the mirror from now on. |
|
|
|
