|
| Author |
Message |
    
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2505
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 5:02 pm: | 
|
>>as a member of the victualling department, he said it was an officer. <<
As a member of the victualling department I believe Littlejohn would have known McElroy and Barker, the two pursers on board.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Hi, David.
As posted above, it seems we have concensus that the officer who helped load the aft starboard boats was *very probably* Moody.
It's been a week - do you have any responses to any of the issues posted above by Sam, Tad and Inger?
Bill
|
David Gleicher
Member
Username: dgleicher
Post Number: 44
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Bill,
My apologies. I do have something to say, but this is a very busy time for me at work so it hasn't been possible to get to it. I should be posting something within a week.
DG |
David Gleicher
Member
Username: dgleicher
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 7:20 pm: |
|
Tad, Samuel, Bill,
Thanks for the lengthy responses, As promised, I will respond in kind.
First, on something not related to the immediate issues we are discussing, I don’t refer to others who agree with me on some matter, because I think that proves I am right. I certainly do disagree with you, Mahoney and Quinn with regard to Lifeboat 10, siding in that case with the Mersey Commission. The reason I refer to what others say is simply that serious research articles locate the views they are advancing in relation to other views on the topic. In other words, this kind of writing is a dialogue.
Having said that, I’m not going to pursue here the question of Moody at the starboard aft lifeboats. To me it seems a trivial issue.
On the other hand, the other two (related) issues you raised— when the first starboard boats on the forward end left the ship, and when Lifeboat 9 left—are not trivial. They ultimately enter into the question of when Collapsible C was launched, which in turn has to do with what I believe is a key sub-text of your work and Quinn’s, among many, many others, notably Walter Lord and James Cameron. Namely, a deep-seated belief that there was a rush of Third Class men into the forward end as the ship was literally going under, causing a melee in the launching of Collapsible C--as testified to by Hugh Woolner at the Senate investigation—and that this possibly led to shots being fired by an officer in the vicinity of one of the collapsibles, and possibly the officer shooting himself.
The import of our disagreement (to me, anyway) is that the Mersey Commission finding that C left at 1:40--which I argue is more than adequately supported by the weight of the evidence—takes the ground away from this conventional, melodramatic (and metaphorically problematic) picture of the last moments on the ship. This is why, from my end, there is some passion behind what would otherwise be yet another antiquarian exchange.
Since you’ve opened up a number of fronts, I am going to confine myself in this post to the issue of when the first boats left the starboard side. I hope to follow up within a week or so on the question of the departure time of Lifeboat 9. After that I’ll wait for your forthcoming analytic critique of my book.
The issue of when the first lifeboats were launched from the starboard side, revolves around a roughly twenty minute discrepancy between your view and mine, that more or less is carried forward to the discrepancy in the times we give for the launching of Collapsible C. Your contention, as I understand it, is still that Rowe was on an adjusted time when he testified to seeing the first boat, no. 7, alone in the water at 12:25. You infer from this a time of 12:50 to 12:55 before all three boats had been launched. In addition, you are arguing that the boats were not loaded until 12:25, and infer from that the same time of 12:50 to 12:55 for all of the three boats to be in the water.
My view is quite different of course. Your first crucial claim that Rowe testified in adjusted time has no evidentiary basis. It moves beyond improbable inference into pure conjecture. I take Rowe’s testimony (amazingly enough) at its word. It is direct first-hand testimony that the first boat on the starboard side was in the water around 12:25. In a similar fashion, I credit Third Officer Pitman’s testimony at its word, that the second boat, Lifeboat 5 left at around 12:30, and that as testified to by Lowe, Lifeboat 3 left a few minutes after that. Thus rather than a time of 12:50 to 12:55, simply from the direct evidence I arrive at a time of 12:30 to 12:35. (I should say there is an error in two of my tables in the book that give the launching of Lifeboat 5 as 12:25, but as the text makes clear the correct time is 12:30.)
It is important to keep in mind that most of what we do know about the early preparation of the boats on the forward end comes from Lightoller, whose interactions as he describes them, were largely with Wilde, and at certain key moments (according to him) with Smith.
When it came to the loading the boats, Lightoller exclusively was on the port side (and soon would be engaged in his ongoing struggle with Lifeboat 4 on A Deck). He has almost nothing to say, and therefore we know very little about, the timing of Murdoch’s activities, including the loading of Lifeboat 7. What we do know is that along with Lightoller, Murdoch had been supervising the preparation of the boats on the forward end, with Wilde overseeing the whole operation, and being the one primarily in direct communication with Smith.
Boxhall indicated in testimony that neither he nor Smith were aware that Lifeboat 7 had been launched until it was already in the water and had been spotted by Rowe. It would seem then that either Murdoch had been told at some point by Smith or, more likely, by Wilde, to begin loading boats even before all the boats had on the forward end had been prepared, or he took it upon himself to do so.
In any case, it is quite feasible that Murdoch began loading no. 7 as early as around 12:10 to 12:15. This early time is consistent with Pitman’s testimony that Lifeboat 5 was just being uncovered at around 12:20, and that it might even have been that Pitman arrived five minutes earlier than that. According to Pitman, Murdoch was already working at these boats and ordered him to assist, at around 12:20. Hence a departure time of between 12:20 and 12:25 for Lifeboat 7, as testified to by Rowe, and a launching of Lifeboats 5 and 3 between 12:30 and 12:35, is not inconsistent either with Pitman’s testimony or Rowe’s..
You offer up two basic counter-arguments to the above. One is that “the order to load the boats” was at 12:25 so that the three boats on the starboard side must have been launched later than that, and by implication, according to your time-table, that indeed it took from thirty to forty minutes to load these boats. Second, you contend that Pitman’s testimony is fatally flawed, and by implication, the time of 12:30 that he testified to, must have been off by twenty to twenty-five minutes, according to your time table. Both arguments are therefore improbable on the surface, but I’ll address each in somewhat more detail.
With regard to the first, with all due respect, are you saying that there was one big order that was given—kind of like a grade B movie--Captain Smith announcing for all to hear that at that moment the loading of lifeboats could commence. And at that moment and no a moment before, there could not have been lifeboats on the forward end to have been loaded, let alone launched.
Let’s leave the movie theatre and consider that in the real world the orders to load the boats, like the orders to bring passengers up to the Boat Deck, were filtered through a chain of command that on the Titanic, not atypically, spread out as it got to lower levels, where the detailed activities took place.
Therefore any order took effect through different people, at different times, in different localities and even in different words with different meanings and with different effects. Lightoller’s testimony itself indicates that there was no single grand announcement that the boats be loaded, and in fact Lightoller testified that he had little contact or knowledge about what Murdoch was doing.
Smith at this time was primarily concerned with contacting other ships. In general, it was up to Wilde to make operational decisions and to convey Smith’s broad orders to the senior officers, who were responsible for having these orders implemented. Just as he was in contact with Lightoller, no doubt Wilde was in contact with Murdoch as well, but of course we have no witnesses to what orders Murdoch was actually given.
To make the point perhaps more clearly, you cite Poingdestre’s testimony, the heart of which is:
The Commissioner:
He first said he went to this place to get his boots three-quarters of an hour after the collision, and that when he got his boots and was coming out then the wooden bulkhead gave way. That must have been, if anything, longer than three-quarters of an hour.
It is very difficult, my Lord.
Poingdestre:
Well, about three-quarters of an hour, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
It is near enough.
2873. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) You cleared out, you say?
Poingdestre: Yes.
2874. Where did you go to then?
- I was going up on to the boat deck to go towards my own boat, and I heard the Captain pass the remark, "Start putting the women and children in the boats," and then I went to my boat, No. 12.
All that we know from this supposed evidence is that on his way to preparing boats on the port side aft, Poingdestre heard the Captain “pass the remark, ‘start putting women and children in the boats’.” Granting that this was around 12:25, since Poingdestre was likely on the port side, being on his way to no. 12, and since it is well-documented that Smith assisted in the loading of Lifeboat 8, and since nos. 6 and 8 would have been ready to be loaded at around this time, it does not seem improbable that Poingdestre heard an order by Smith to load them. In any case, how on earth does this bear one way or another on when the first three boats on the starboard side were loaded and launched by Murdoch?
Turning briefly to your other counter-argument, discrediting Pitman’s testimony, you don’t dispute Pitman’s estimate of 12:20 as when he arrived at Lifeboat 5, but you argue that the boat could not have been loaded and launched by 12:30.
You really have to inflate the time it would have taken to prepare and load these three boats, to arrive at your conclusions. These boats, with three top officers overseeing the operation, and a remarkable twenty-four crew members who entered them—and with no time being taken to look for more passengers, would not have taken, as your timetable suggests, thirty-five to forty-five minutes to be loaded and launched.
Pitman, assisted by four “sailors”, and racing for time, filled lifeboat 5 only to 55% capacity (Lifeboat 7 was only filled to 43% and no. 5 to 60%), he took seven other crew members aboard, and he himself estimated that he got the boat in the water in about ten minutes. Even if he were off by five or ten minutes it would still mean that the boat was launched fifteen to twenty minutes before you say it was launched. Finally, as I’ve suggested, it is quite possible that Pitman erred on the other side, having arrived at the boat around 12:15 instead of 12:20, making a 12:25 to 12:30 launch time plausible.
Much of the rest of your argument has to do with the claim that Pitman’s time does not correspond to the grand 12:25 order to load the boats, with all your witnesses on the starboard side, and which I’ve sufficiently discussed.
I will have more to say about the launching of Lifeboat 9 in a later post.
DG |
David Gleicher
Member
Username: dgleicher
Post Number: 46
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 7:26 pm: |
|
A quick correction. In the next to the last paragraph of the above post I meant to say "port side" not "starboard side."
DG |
J. Kent Layton
Member
Username: jkent
Post Number: 156
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 12:06 am: |
|
David,
I am forced to wonder, reading your above posts, if you've bothered to read (or at least carefully read) the 2009 version of my book, Atlantic Liners: A Trio of Trios. This is why: First of all, you could not even remember how to correctly spell my name in your early posts. Secondly, I have not seen an order come through the publisher directly (up to this time), and neither have I seen any orders from you directly through any of the methods I have for making this book available. Finally and perhaps most importantly, your responses and assertions about what we are supposedly trying to argue, where we got our evidence, and why we reach certain conclusions (including your post from just earlier today) go in direct contradiction to much of the information that was made available through that publication.
If you have not done so already, I would recommend that you pick up a copy of that book and read the main text as well as all footnotes and endnotes in the Titanic chapter, and take it in conjunction with all evidence presented in the lifeboat article. The two pieces were researched concurrently and are mutually supportive. To read one without reading the other would be missing a large piece of the overall picture that we have managed to reconstruct.
Take care!
Regards,
J. Kent Layton
http://www.atlanticliners.com
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 358
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 18, 2009 - 2:57 am: |
|
David, thanks for your response to our inquiries. I hope that you are doing well.
David wrote: "I don’t refer to others who agree with me on some matter, because I think that proves I am right... The reason I refer to what others say is simply that serious research articles locate the views they are advancing in relation to other views on the topic."
The viewpoints of other authors means very little, and does not constitute a discussion of the actual evidence. Your citations of specific opinions on the lifeboat sequence held by Quinn or Molony that you agree with (coupled with the fact that you always fail to mention the areas where Molony and Quinn disagree with you) leaves one with the impression that you think your selective quoting of other authors somehow buttresses your own conclusions that are similar. On the other hand, we started our lifeboat research from "scratch," and built it from the ground up, not relying on previous works by others, but on the eyewitness accounts and statements themselves, not any preconceived notions. The timeline that we have reconstructed takes into account a far larger range of evidence than just what lifeboats were loaded or lowered when. The estimated launch times that we have in our article fit into that larger, and vitally important, picture and timeline of events that night, both on the Boat Deck, and elsewhere. Our revised article also reflects our willingness to revise our opinion or findings on certain points when new evidence necessitates such alterations.
David wrote: "Having said that, I’m not going to pursue here the question of Moody at the starboard aft lifeboats. To me it seems a trivial issue."
Several of us posed the specific question to you of what evidence you have that supports this officer being anyone other than Moody. Inger, Sam, and myself provided specific evidence supporting our conclusions on this, which you have not addressed. This is not a "trivial issue" as you put it. The officer movements are just one of many critical pieces of evidence that need to be taken into account, along with the body of evidence as a whole, if an accurate timeline is to be reached. As it stands now, you are forced to attempt to discredit the eyewitness statements of who was where and when, or else your times for the lowerings would have some of the officers in two places at once, including Moody. (Another example is your dismissal of Evans' and Buley's sighting of Murdoch at #10. This is despite the fact that both men were members of the deck department, Evans having served with Murdoch previously on the Olympic, and both men were very likely to know Murdoch by sight. Why do you dismiss this? Because otherwise your proposed times have Murdoch on two sides of the ship at once. Also, it calls into question your assumption that # 10 left right after # 8, with Wilde going right from the one boat, to the other!).
David wrote: "They ultimately enter into the question of when Collapsible C was launched...which in turn has to do with what I believe is a key sub-text of your work and Quinn’s...Namely, a deep-seated belief that there was a rush of Third Class men into the forward end as the ship was literally going under, causing a melee in the launching of Collapsible C--as testified to by Hugh Woolner at the Senate investigation—and that this possibly led to shots being fired by an officer in the vicinity of one of the collapsibles, and possibly the officer shooting himself."
The key phrase here is when you say "what I believe." You are completely wrong in assuming any alleged shooting event has anything to do with how we reached the conclusion of when Collapsible C left the ship. We know that you are fully aware of this, since we have previously spelled out to you specific eyewitness testimony and accounts that prove Collapsible C left the ship closer to 2:00, but you have failed to address this testimony at all. (I can link to the old threads if you wish). Rowe's statement that the ship sank just 20 minutes after he left in C, Carter's statements giving a similar time estimate, Ismay estimating even less time than them, etc., are just some of the many lines of evidence here which you do not include in your book or have completely failed to address, and none of these have anything to do with any supposed "melee" of third class passengers.
David wrote:
"My view is quite different of course. Your first crucial claim that Rowe testified in adjusted time has no evidentiary basis. It moves beyond improbable inference into pure conjecture. I take Rowe’s testimony (amazingly enough) at its word. It is direct first-hand testimony that the first boat on the starboard side was in the water around 12:25."
A more accurate statement would be that you take at face value the statements of Rowe's which you agree with, and that you ignore the statements of his which you don't agree with, without explaining why or even bringing it up (e.g. Rowe's time estimate of the ship sinking just 20 minutes after Collapsible C left the ship.) We have already pointed out that Rowe gave conflicting accounts over the years, of his actions and the timing of events, and several times estimates, including 12:25 for when the first lifeboat lowered away. He also said 12:30 and 1:00 a.m. in other accounts. In one account, he even admitted when asked about the timing of a certain event that he never "thought of or about a watch." So the time estimates given by him need to be scrutinized in the context of the larger body of evidence. His time of the collision passes this test, his time for the first and last boat on the starboard side does not. When Rowe said that he saw in a boat in water at a time when numerous other witnesses said the order to load the boats had only just come down, it is clear that Rowe’s statement cannot be relied upon.
And if you want to talk about "pure conjecture", let's talk about your book's statements, without any evidence whatsoever, that Lowe went to the port A Deck to lower the windows for # 4. Or Moody being at # 6.
David wrote: "It is important to keep in mind that most of what we do know about the early preparation of the boats on the forward end comes from Lightoller, whose interactions as he describes them, were largely with Wilde, and at certain key moments (according to him) with Smith."
It is puzzling that you apparently limit yourself to Lightoller's recollections about early lifeboat preparations, because additional evidence on the subject is available from a wide variety of additional crewmembers and passengers. Most of what we know does not come from Lightoller alone. The sum total of this additional evidence supports the timeline that we have compiled in both the lifeboat article and in J. Kent Layton's Atlantic Liners: A Trio of Trios.
This is in line with another point from the previous posts that you have thus far ignored: You have freely admitted that the only sources you consider credible are the inquiries, as well as Beesley and Gracie. By limiting yourself to these sources alone, you have literally ignored dozens of reliable eyewitness accounts without even bothering to see what they say. How can you claim to give a full picture of what happened if you don't even take the full body of evidence into account?
David wrote: "With regard to the first, with all due respect, are you saying that there was one big order that was given—kind of like a grade B movie--Captain Smith announcing for all to hear that at that moment the loading of lifeboats could commence. And at that moment and no a moment before, there could not have been lifeboats on the forward end to have been loaded, let alone launched."
There is nothing cinematically dramatic about the evidence offered by crew and passengers who recalled the events in question, and no dramatic license has been given in our lifeboat article. It is based solely on eyewitness statements, not on conjecture.
David wrote: "In any case, how on earth does this bear one way or another on when the first three boats on the starboard side were loaded and launched by Murdoch?"
Let me explain it to you. Besides Poingdestre (who you mention in your post), Lightoller, Hart, Hichens, Gracie, Shelley, Mackay, and others all stated times or gave estimates indicating that the order to load the boats with passengers was not given until sometime around 12:25 a.m. In our article, we have also provided strong eyewitness evidence that Captain Smith did not even learn the ship was doomed until 12:25 or so. Both the delivery of Andrews' news and the order to load the boats with passengers were given around 12:25. This is also close to 12:27, when the first CQD was sent out. You have never addressed any of the specific eyewitness accounts relating to this. These eyewitnesses were all in different areas of the ship, and are a mix of passengers and crewmembers. It wasn't just those people in one particular section of the ship who said this, and they all estimate the order to load the boats coming down at roughly the same time.
David wrote: "Smith at this time was primarily concerned with contacting other ships."
Strictly speaking, this is a demonstrably false statement. Smith was involved in many matters between 11:40 and 12:25, and his movements can be followed in a fair amount of detail, with specific time references and time frames given by the eyewitnesses. If you had read our article or Kent's book carefully, you would be aware that there are eyewitness accounts disproving your statement.
David wrote: "You really have to inflate the time it would have taken to prepare and load these three boats, to arrive at your conclusions."
The estimates of how long it would take to prepare and load the lifeboats does not come from our own conclusions, but rather is based upon specific testimony from survivors (chief amongst them, Lightoller and Lowe), as well as known procedures for loading and preparing lifeboats, and a wealth of technical information available to everyone on just how these mechanisms worked.
Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and removing several minutes from the estimates that Lightoller and Lowe gave regarding the length of time it took to load and lower a boat, it still would have taken 15 minutes from when they started to uncover until it is ready for loading, and then 10-15 minutes to load a boat, depending how many are put in and any reluctance of passengers to enter, etc. Another account is from Nichols who said it took about 20 minutes to load and lower #15, which was quite full.
David wrote: "I will have more to say about the launching of Lifeboat 9 in a later post."
Instead of doing that, it might be better if you were to address the many unanswered questions and points that I directed at you in my post, as well as the questions Sam, Inger, and the others put to you in their posts but which you have not acknowledged.
As far as our critique of your work, do not misunderstand us. It will not be a review of your book as a whole, just of your conclusions relating to the lifeboat launch sequence. As we have stated previously, while we disagree with you in that area, you make some interesting points regarding the third class passengers in your book and we have recommend that others read it, despite our disagreement with you on the lifeboat findings.
I hope that you have a great weekend.
Kind regards,
Tad |
David Gleicher
Member
Username: dgleicher
Post Number: 47
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Tad,
You write:
“Instead of doing that, it might be better if you were to address the many unanswered questions and points that I directed at you in my post, as well as the questions Sam, Inger, and the others put to you in their posts but which you have not acknowledged.”
Well, as far as the question of Moody is concerned, Inger and I have been through this before, and anyway I don’t dismiss out of hand the possibility that the officer referred to was Moody. What more can I say?
Many other points you and Sam make have to do with other departure times—Collapsible C, no. 10, no. 4,no. 6 and on and on, and this is not the time or place I want to address them (see my book). You initially cited two major areas where you thought my ideas were wanting—the departure time of the first boats launched and the departure time of Lifeboat 9. Those are the areas I am trying to briefly to address.
In terms of positive evidence, concerning the first boats launched, the most telling rejoinder the two of you make in your last posts, rests on a false assumption (one might say, conceit), that there was a single point in space/time—12:25 on the forward end--when an order came down from Smith that the boats be loaded. Therefore, implicitly, no boat could have been loaded prior to that.
I don’t need to respond to each single “eye-witness” you cite along these lines--and anyway I don’t disagree that the order to load the boats on the port side was around 12:25, which is all you demonstrate. But your assumption is relaxed there is no evidence left about the boats on the starboard side, loaded by Murdoch, which are the boats after all that we are discussing.
As you know, Pitman, once Lifeboat 5 was ready to be loaded (and Lifeboat 7 was in the water), checked with Smith, and was told to “carry on.” Presumably meaning to load and launch the boat as ordered by Murdoch (and Ismay).. This is quite consistent with Pitman’s testimony that he arrived at the boat around 12:20. And you have not demonstrated at all that Murdoch was already loading Lifeboat 7 at that point, or that around ten minutes later, Lifeboat 5 was in the water.
Your other argument, attempting to discredit Pitman’s testimony, coupled with the above belief that the starboard side boats were ordered loaded no earlier than 12:25 implies, by your time-table, that it took twenty-five to thirty minutes (by the way, I misstated these numbers by accident in my last post) to simply load these boats and launch them.
This is what you wrote, referring to Lifeboat 5:
“Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and removing several minutes from the estimates that Lightoller and Lowe gave regarding the length of time it took to load and lower a boat, it still would have taken 15 minutes from when they started to uncover until it is ready for loading, and then 10-15 minutes to load a boat…”
Since they were presumably uncovered by 12:25, when Smith gave the grand order to load the boats on the forward end, Lifeboat 5 should have been in the water ten to fifteen minutes later; that is, between 12:35 and 12:40, not between 12:50 and 12:55, as you would have it.
There is also a sleight of hand you perform when calculating the time it must have taken for Pitman to launch the boat. Pitman’s testimony was not that the boat was just beginning to be uncovered when he arrived at 12:20.
Pitman was asked, “was the cover being stripped at the time you got there?” To which he replied, “It was being uncovered then, yes.” A previous statement of Pitman’s as to the state of the boat when he arrived was, “well the cover was still on” could thus be easily interpreted to mean that the boat was not far from being ready to load; which would have been the time Murdoch was most likely to have summoned Pitman to the boat in the first place.
DG |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2530
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 21, 2009 - 3:20 am: |
|
David, you said:
>>A previous statement of Pitman’s as to the state of the boat when he arrived was, “well the cover was still on” could thus be easily interpreted to mean that the boat was not far from being ready to load.<<
How can you possibly suggest that? Not far from being ready to load with the cover still on? Before anything much can be done with a boat the cover had to be first unlaced and taken off. Then they had to take the grips off, ship the rudder, put in the plug while hopefully you had others who would be getting out and coiling the falls, getting the oars unlashed, etc., then swing the boat out and lower to the rail and make fast. There are estimates of how long all that took in the testimonies. It was not a 5 minute deal. If Pitman came to No. 5 about 12:20, and they were still stripping the cover off, then I see no possible way that No. 5 could be loaded and ready to lower by 12:30 as you have it. The only sleight of hand being played here I'm afraid is what you are suggesting.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 21, 2009 - 4:09 am: |
|
David wrote:
"this is not the time or place I want to address them (see my book)"
We did. Which is why we are now writing a full article to point out the flaws in your lifeboat launching timeline.
"you have not demonstrated at all that Murdoch was already loading Lifeboat 7 at that point, or that around ten minutes later, Lifeboat 5 was in the water."
Of course we wouldn't attempt to prove #5 left 10 minutes after #7, as our timeline has only 5 minutes!
Let's also keep in mind that Pitman did just a bit more than David says above, in those 10 minutes. He talked to Ismay about loading the lifeboat, and also went to the bridge looking for Captain Smith to see if he should load the boat. These items will add at least a few more minutes to however long it took him to finish these things. Making 10 minutes even less likely to be correct.
Bill
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 359
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 21, 2009 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Hi David, how are you?
You wrote:
"Well, as far as the question of Moody is concerned, Inger and I have been through this before, and anyway I don’t dismiss out of hand the possibility that the officer referred to was Moody. What more can I say?"
Well, if you have been through this before and admit the possibility that Moody was the officer in question, then you also have to admit the possibility that your launch times are incorrect.
Your launch sequence has # 16 lowering at 1:20 a.m., and # 13 and # 15 at 1:25. Essentially, you have Moody in two places at once, since the officer on A Deck was described by Littlejohn and others as having loaded the passengers into those boats there. According to Beesley and others, Murdoch left the scene after ordering those two boats lowered away, at which point they stopped and took on the majority of passengers on A Deck. If Moody stayed at # 16 until it was lowered away, this problem is further compounded, since it took five minutes to lower a boat to the water, which means Moody would not even have been able to get to # 13 and # 15 prior to them lowering at 1:25.
Additionally, Threlfall and others were released from below at a time specifically mentioned as 1:20 a.m. He immediately proceeded up on deck and was able to board # 14 before it lowered. Your sequence has # 16 and # 14 lowering at 1:20, another indicator that your times are off. In order to gain a truly accurate picture of the timeline, all of this comes into play, including the officer movements, which you branded "trivial" in an earlier post when discussing Moody.
You wrote:
"Many other points you and Sam make have to do with other departure times—Collapsible C, no. 10, no. 4,no. 6 and on and on, and this is not the time or place I want to address them (see my book)."
We have seen your book, as you were kind enough to send some of us a copy when it came out, and disagree with your findings about the launch sequence. There isn't any evidence that you present there that is anymore convincing than what you have stated here, which is why we posed these specific questions to you, particularly since you never address many of the eyewitness accounts, and admit that you have willingly ignored everything not from the inquiries, Beesley, or Gracie. I'm sorry, but without taking the full body of evidence into account, you're missing reliable and crucial information from other sources.
You wrote:
"I don’t need to respond to each single “eye-witness” you cite along these lines--and anyway I don’t disagree that the order to load the boats on the port side was around 12:25, which is all you demonstrate."
Your reluctance to discuss the eyewitnesses in question is puzzling, as is your assertion that all they prove is that the order to load the boats on the port came at 12:25. Most, if not all of these eyewitness accounts aren't addressed in your book, or subsequent arguments here, which is why we asked that you do so here.
The eyewitnesses to this order were in various places, not just the port side, contrary to your assertion. For example, Poingdestre has just come up to the Boat Deck from below when he heard the order, Hart was below deck with the other Third Class stewards when he heard the order, Mackay was also below-deck when he heard Dodd pass along the order, Shelley was in the First Class quarters when a steward told her the order, etc. Most of these witnesses were in locations other than on the port side of the Boat Deck, and all give time estimates or specific times indicating the order to load the boats came down around 12:25. They are not specific to the port boats.
You wrote:
"There is also a sleight of hand you perform when calculating the time it must have taken for Pitman to launch the boat. Pitman’s testimony was not that the boat was just beginning to be uncovered when he arrived at 12:20."
Sam already demonstrated how much you're reaching on this point, so I won't repeat it here.
Kind regards,
Tad |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2533
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 21, 2009 - 6:42 pm: |
|
David,
I hope I don't come across as jumping on your case, or anything like that, but I was just looking back at what I posted On May 6, and noticed that I did address the issue of the first lifeboat launch time. In particular, the evidence presented by stewards Wheat and Ray regarding the time that water was seen on E deck by the 1st class staircase which was right after Ray saw boat #7 going away.
I know in your book you have boat #7 launched at 12:25, and in your book you said that the first rocket "really was at 12:25 or even as early as 12:20." I also am intimately familiar with Rowe's testimony about seeing a boat on the starboard beam at 12:25. I hope you realize that if he saw the boat in the water at 12:25 unadjusted time then they had to have launced that boat no later than 12:20 for it to have been seen away from ship off the starboard beam at the time he stated. You cannot just drop the boat from the boat deck 60 ft up. With the pulley arrangement thay had, the best that can be expected is for the boat to go down about a foot ever 5 or 6 seconds.
As as far as the first rocket going up as early as you suggest, look at Hichens carefully. He remained at the wheel until 12:23 and then was first sent to take the cover off collapsible D. He also said that no rockets had been sent up before getting to No. 6 (1202-1204). He managed to to get the cover off and the grips off D before being sent to #6 (1087), and no rockets had gone up yet. Only during the loading of #6 were they going up, "because I was working there not more than a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes, I suppose, before I was sent away in the boat."
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
David Gleicher
Member
Username: dgleicher
Post Number: 48
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Sam,
Thank you for your humane remark, and reasonable tone. You know the expression “to keep throwing mud until something sticks”? Well I do feel a bit like the thing being thrown at.
Concerning Ray and Wheat. I think it is very hard to say how long it was before Ray saw the water on E Deck, since he first went to his room. I am sorry, but you don’t know how long Ray took before he left with his topcoat , after which he observed water on the forward end of E Deck. You say five minutes, but it could also have been ten or fifteen. (Ray describes his pace as “leisurely” several times in the course of testifying about his activities around this time).
More importantly, to me the two descriptions of the water on the decks are not sufficient to distinguish that particular section of the ship at 12:20 versus 12:40, so the fact that they are very similar does not seem conclusive within that short a time frame.
As for Hitchens (not, by the way, the most reliable witness), he testified that before he left the wheel-house—as you say, he was relieved at 12:23--he had no way of saying whether a rocket was fired or not.
I infer in my book from the testimony of all three witnesses (each of whom testified extensively on their activities) that Bright supplied Boxhall replacement rockets ahead of Rowe. By this reasoning, Boxhall fired the first rocket very shortly after Rowe had called reporting seeing Lifeboat 7 in the water, and as Lifeboat 5 was just departing. As a result Rowe did not see that first rocket or any other until he reached Boxhall. Hence he testified that the first rocket fired was at 12:45. It was the first rocket that he knew of that had been fired, but there may have been a few fired in between 12:30 and 12:45.
So, my understanding of the matter is that the first rocket was fired around 12:25 to 12:30 (the possibility offered up in my book at one point of it being 12:20 was in retrospect overreaching). Therefore it was likely not seen by Hitchens.
You’re point is well-taken, that if Rowe saw Lifeboat 7 at 12:25 it was actually launched roughly five minutes before that. That ‘s one of the reasons I keep saying that Pitman may have arrived at Lifeboat 5, five minutes or so earlier than his estimate of 12:20.
I had not developed this much at the time I finished the book, but I do believe there is an interesting line of thought here. Mightn’t Murdoch have immediately started loading the first boat, Lifeboat 7, as soon as it was ready (swung out and lowered), and done the same with nos. 5 and 3, which were ready some five minutes after no.7. The loading of no. 7 would be as early as 12:05 to 12:10, given that uncovering the boats had begun five or ten minutes before midnight. Pitman, then, arrived between 12:10 and 12:15, rather than 12:20, at which time the preparations of Lifeboats 5 and 3 were well underway.
Hence it is not so problematic that Lifeboat 7 was launched around 12:20, and Lifeboat 5 around 12:25. This would support the view that Rowe observed Lifeboat 7 at 12:25, the time when Lifeboat 5 was about to be or had just been launched.
Finally, let me address your remarks on how long it took to launch the boat.
I pointed out that Pitman clearly testified that the boat was in process of being uncovered when he arrived, it was not “completely” covered. This was presumably as part of the general preparing of boats on the forward end that was going on.. Four men other than Pitman worked preparing the boat (so, Bill, when Pitman was speaking to Smith it didn’t mean that the work stopped).
The four men would have worked in tandem, so one cannot take each of the tasks and add them serially in time. Given the context, the work would have been done at maximum speed, adrenaline flowing. I contend that, after the final uncovering, the boat would have been swung out and lowered in five to ten minutes, and loaded (roughly at half capacity), in another five to ten. This gives a launch time of 12:30 to 12:40. And this doesn’t take into account that, as just discussed, Pitman may have arrived earlier, between 12:10 and 12:15.
In contrast, Tad, Bill and George contend that Lifeboat 5 departed at 12:50 to 12:55! So, not only wasn’t it a “five minute deal,” according to them it took 30 to 35 minutes from the 12:20 time Pitman gave for when he arrived, to when Lifeboat 5 was finally in the water. Really?
Look, the problem Tad, Bill and George have here (along with their legions of followers on this message board) is that there is no eye-witness testimony—and indeed precious little direct evidence of any sort—that Lifeboat 5 was launched between 12:50 and 12:55.
There is, however, direct testimony that it was launched around 12:30, by no less than the Third Officer on the ship, who happened to be in charge of loading and launching the boat and then entered it and was in charge of it in the water. All the nit-picking in the world does not erase these plain facts.
DG |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1330
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 7:59 pm: |
|
David said:
"I infer in my book from the testimony of all three witnesses (each of whom testified extensively on their activities) that Bright supplied Boxhall replacement rockets ahead of Rowe."
But you keep neglecting the fact that Rowe stated that rockets were *also* kept on the fore bridge! Boxhall had no need to wait for either Bright or Rowe to bring them to him.
As far as "the problem Tad, Bill and George have here" regarding the time of #5 - since there is much evidence that #5 was lowered after #7, then a proof of #7 at 12:40 means that #5 must have left later than 12:40, let's say 12:45, and that Pitman's 'estimate' of 12:30 is wrong.
Why are you mis-quoting us, David? "Tad, Bill and George contend that Lifeboat 5 departed at 12:50 to 12:55". We did *not* say 12:55 at all! Our timeline very specifically says 12:45. If you're going to refer to our timeline, at least get your facts correct!
Bill
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2537
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 12:15 am: |
|
Hi David.
It seems to me that you place a great deal on the times given by Rowe and Pitman for when No. 7 was launched. Of course Pitman was talking about No. 5 which went shortly after No. 7. But you must be aware that Pitman was not very reliable when it came to estimating time. The only reliable time I take from him was the time the ship sank since he said he looked at his watch and told the other people in his boat that it was 2:20. But when it came to when his boat was put into the water, we get conflicting information him. For example, you quote Pitman's, 'Well, I should think it would be about 12.30 when No. 5 boat reached the water.' and take him at his word. Notice that talked about reaching the water at 12:30, not launched at 12:30. But then again, he also said he thought it only took 1 or 2 minutes to drop the boat from 70 ft, which is ridiculous unless they let go of the falls completely.
Anyway, consider this exchange with Fletcher:
Senator FLETCHER. How long was it after your boat was in the water before she went down, as near as you can fix it?
Mr. PITMAN. How long before?
Senator FLETCHER. How long was it after your boat was lowered into the water before the 2.20 hour arrived and the Titanic went down?
Mr. PITMAN. I should say an hour and a half.
I don't know about you, but if you go back an hour and a half from 2:20 you arrive at 12:50 for when #5 was put into the water according to Pitman.
So which Pitman version do you want to believe?
I have more to say about Rowe's times, but that will have to be for another day. Got to go for now.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 362
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 7:14 am: |
|
Hello David, how are you?
You wrote:
"As for Hitchens (not, by the way, the most reliable witness)...he had no way of saying whether a rocket was fired or not."
Labeling Hichens an unreliable witness doesn't change what he said. Hichens was very specific that no rockets had been sent up prior to him getting to #6. Him being located in the wheelhouse doesn't mean he was in a sound-proof booth, unaware of anything going on outside. If they had been sending off rockets prior to him going to #6, he would have been able to hear the detonators going off, and the bursting of the rocket, not to mention the flash of light it would have made. He may not have been able to see the rockets being fired directly from his location, but would have been able to see the flash through the window in the side of the wheelhouse, or from the windows fore of his position, since the forward Bridge itself was open on it's sides. The starboard Bridge wing was close by, and Lowe and other described the noise of the rockets being fired as deafening, as well as how the flash lit up the entire surrounding deck, at least as far back as #3.
You wrote:
"I infer in my book from the testimony of all three witnesses (each of whom testified extensively on their activities) that Bright supplied Boxhall replacement rockets ahead of Rowe. By this reasoning, Boxhall fired the first rocket very shortly after Rowe had called reporting seeing Lifeboat 7 in the water, and as Lifeboat 5 was just departing. As a result Rowe did not see that first rocket or any other until he reached Boxhall."
This is indeed an inference on your part. In his testimony, Rowe himself says nothing in regards to whether he saw the first rocket fired or not. In the 1960s, he told one person no rockets were fired before he came to the Bridge, but told another that they were.
In your book, you suggest that two phone calls were made from the docking bridge, and say in the book and here that Bright and Rowe went to the Bridge separately.
First, there is zero evidence, eyewitness or otherwise, that there were two phone calls. Boxhall only testified to one, as did Rowe. What Rowe said was discussed matches the context of what Boxhall says was discussed in the call he received. Why speculate about, or invent a second phone call when there is no eyewitness testimony for it?
Also, Boxhall is specific in his testimony that at the time he received the call, he was returning the firing lanyard to the Bridge, meaning that he had just fired a rocket.
There is no evidence at all that Rowe and Bright went to the Bridge separately. Rowe doesn't mention Bright in any of his accounts or testimony, other than saying his relief was late. However, Bright himself contradicts your thoughts about them heading off individually. Bright testified that Rowe and he were told 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”. This does *not* indicate that Rowe and he went forward at different times.
In any event, Rowe's testimony and other evidence indicates that rockets were also kept forward, so Boxhall would not have needed to wait for Rowe and Bright to bring any forward before he could start firing them.
I hope you have a nice weekend.
Kind regards,
Tad |
David Gleicher
Member
Username: dgleicher
Post Number: 49
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Sam, Bill, Tad,
Sam writes, I think for the second time, “It seems to me that you place a great deal on the times given by Rowe and Pitman for when No. 7 was launched. Of course Pitman was talking about No. 5 which went shortly after No. 7.”
Well, let me ask you, aside from perhaps Murdoch or Lowe, who of all those on the Titanic living or dead was in the best position to testify about the times when these boats were loaded and launched? Well my answer is Pitman. So it makes sense to me, all things being equal, to assign a great weight to his testimony. Does this not make sense to you? (A more moderate version of this reasoning applies to Rowe.)
If anything, I would suggest that things are unequal in Pitman’s favor, not as you would have it, against him. He testified at length at both inquiries, and his testimony throughout is rather consistent with the testimony of others. You don’t seem to have any problem depending on his testimony of a two or three minute gap between the launching of nos. 7 and 5, so how bad at numbers can he be?
The fact that Pitman may have mis-estimated how long it takes for a boat to be lowered to the water from the boat deck, or that he said one and a half hours rather than one hour and fifty minutes, quite possibly because he didn’t subtract correctly from 2:20, hardly seems to me very telling. He was one of the only officers who gave a ballpark number for those who entered his Lifeboat, which strikes me as more revealing.
More importantly, at the British inquiry when directly asked Pitman gave a time of around 12:30 for the departure of the boat. He also clearly thought he swung out, loaded and launched the boat by 12:30. At the American inquiry he testified that it took two or three minutes to swing out the boat, which is consistent with the ten minute time interval from 12:20 to 30.
In this context, I wonder whether you know enough to infer--not actually having been there--that what Pitman thought took ten minutes could only have occurred in twenty-five minutes?
I ran across some notes that pointed to the following testimony of Lowe at the British inquiry, which, if we grant that no. 5 was almost uncovered when Pitman arrived, seems to me to support his contention that a boat could be swung out, loaded and lowered to the water in ten minutes. I wonder what you have to say about it?
Mr. Laing 15930. So far as you saw did it take a fairly considerable time to launch these boats?
Lowe- No.
Mr. Harbinson:
15931.Did it take half-an-hour to launch these boats?
Lowe- I do not know. It was not the launching of the boats that took the time. We got the whole boat out and in the water in less than ten minutes. It was getting the people together that took the time.
Finally, as stated in Bill and Tad’s own article, Pitman’s description of his activities prior to his arrival at Lifeboat 5 is consistent with his time of 12:20. And this not contradicted by Lowe’s testimony either.
So, whether you believe Pitman or not, it seems clear he intended to say that the boat was launched at 12:30, not, as you would have it, 12:50.
Bill, I forgot that you round down the two or three minute gap between no. 7 and no. 5 so that they both depart at 12:45, and then round up the gap between no. 5 and 3, which then appears as a ten minute gap. Rather than get hung up on a degree of precision that can never be achieved, I think we can agree that all three boats were in the water within around ten minutes of each other, and the question then is when that ten minute block occurred. Along these lines, I have tried to frame the times in terms of when all three boats were in the water, and that is what I meant to refer to in the instance(s) you cite.
DG |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 363
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Hello David, how are you? Things have been busy here as usual lately.
You wrote:
"I ran across some notes that pointed to the following testimony of Lowe at the British inquiry, which, if we grant that no. 5 was almost uncovered when Pitman arrived, seems to me to support his contention that a boat could be swung out, loaded and lowered to the water in ten minutes. I wonder what you have to say about it?"
David, I definitely disagree with you on this point. Regarding Lowe's comments, we first have to go back to some of his other testimony:
"Senator SMITH. Did it take 20 minutes; or approximately how long (to launch the boats)?
Mr. LOWE. Yes; I should say, from the start to finish of putting a boat over, until you get her into the water, it will take you somewhere about 20 minutes."
Lowe is not clear as to whether he is including loading people into the lifeboat in this explanation. It is also not clear if he is including the time it takes to uncover the lifeboat, before attaching it to the falls and lowering to the deck.
Lowe also testified as you quoted above:
"(Mr. Harbinson.) Did it take half an hour to launch these boats? - I do not know. It was not the launching of the boats that took the time. We got the whole boat out and in the water in less than ten minutes. It was getting the people together that took the time."
Note that in the testimony that you quoted, Lowe is *not* saying that the entire preparation, loading and lowering of a boat could be done in 10 minutes.
It is quite clear that he was saying that the time it would take to swing out a lifeboat and lower it down to the water would be about 10 minutes. He excluded the time required to gather the passengers and *load* it, which is what he was saying too took the additional time.
As for our long-running conversation here, we have covered most of these points in detail, so we are beginning to go around in circles a bit it seems. Perhaps it is best to agree to disagree for now, and pick up the discussion once our rebuttal is complete?
I hope that your week is going well.
Kind regards,
Tad |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2543
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 4:46 pm: |
|
David, you asked me "who of all those on the Titanic living or dead was in the best position to testify about the times when these boats were loaded and launched?"
I must honestly answer NOBODY unless it could be established that they had actually looked a watch or clock when a boat was being loaded or launched. The times given were all subjective estimates, and a few of them were not thought through very well. And just because someone was an officer or deck crew member, it does not mean what they said necessarily should be given more weight than someone else. The only way to get at times is to cross check with other sources and evidence presented.
You said, "You don’t seem to have any problem depending on his [Pitman's] testimony of a two or three minute gap between the launching of nos. 7 and 5, so how bad at numbers can he be?"
Personally, I don't think it was as short as 2 or 3 minutes between those two boats being launched.
You also said, "He [Pitman] also clearly thought he swung out, loaded and launched the boat by 12:30. At the American inquiry he testified that it took two or three minutes to swing out the boat, which is consistent with the ten minute time interval from 12:20 to 30."
No it is NOT consistent with the 10 minutes from when he arrived at the boat to when it was in the water. A time of 2-3 minutes to crank a boat out once the chocks were removed seems quite reasonable based on information given by others. Add to that 5 to 6 minutes to lower a loaded boat from 60 ft up, and you have 7 to 9 minutes taken up just by those activities alone. But to get the total time, you have to add to that the time it took to clear the boat before it could even be swung out (which includes getting the cover off, shipping the rudder, getting the oars and oar locks ready, the plug put in, the falls removed and coiled on deck, etc.), and then to include the time it would realistically take to get people into it, and your 10 minutes gets easily blown right out of the water, (no pun intended).
You also asked me about the testimony of Lowe at the British inquiry, "which, if we grant that no. 5 was almost uncovered when Pitman arrived, seems to me to support his contention that a boat could be swung out, loaded and lowered to the water in ten minutes."
It is very clear to me that Lowe was saying that the time it would take to get a boat swung out and then lowered to the water would be less than 10 minutes. He clearly did not include the time to load people into it, and he certainly wasn't including the preparation time needed before it could be swung out to begin with. He made it very clear that the big gap from swinging out to lowering was finding people and getting them into it.
By the way, Lowe is simply confirming my estimate of "7 to 9 minutes" that I obtained above. I also do not believe No. 5 was almost uncovered when Pitman arrived. He certainly does not give the impression that the cover was nearly off when he got there. Just the opposite. He specifically said the cover was still on when he got there, and that he himself was working to uncover it with a few other crew members when Ismay came along and told them, "There is no time to waste."
I have no idea why Pitman told Aspinall "Well, I should think it would be about 12.30 when No. 5 boat reached the water." Think about it. He said "reached the water" (not launched) by 12:30. Did they get it uncovered, swung out, loaded, and lowered down 60 ft to the water all in 10 minutes time from when he arrived? To me it very clear that Pitman was not thinking it completely through when he came out with that answer. Unfortunately, they didn't press him further on that. In fact, they [the wreck commission] eventually decided on 12:55 for a launch time for No. 5 as you know. What I do believe, is that Pitman's American Inquiry estimate of his boat being in the water for an hour and a half before the ship sank was closer to the reality.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - 6:03 pm: |
|
All,
In recent discussions here on ET concerning lifeboat launch time issues, David Gleicher asked to see what evidence we have that shows that his lifeboat launch sequence, as presented in his 2006 book, is seriously flawed. We (George Behe, Tad Fitch and I, with assists from Sam Halpern and J. Kent Layton) have written an in-depth article outlining this evidence at: http://home.att.net/~wormstedt/titanic/crit/Gleicher.htm.
For those interested, the latest revision to our internally consistent lifeboat launch sequence, which was built from the ground up, can be accessed at: http://home.comcast.net/%7Ebwormst/titanic/lifeboats/lifeboats.htm.
Bill
|
George Lorton
Member
Username: retro_geo
Post Number: 273
Registered: 5-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - 10:57 pm: |
|
Looks fascinating! Good Work and thanks for sharing! I never really got into the Starboard side! I've always been more interested in the Port side launching! So this will be a mind opener for me! |
Arun Vajpey
Member
Username: zekenwolf
Post Number: 219
Registered: 4-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, June 4, 2009 - 8:29 am: |
|
I 'borrowed' Tad G Fitch's quote below from another thread because my related question is more relevant here:
>>>>>>> The jump that was required was due to the 10 degree port list that was mentioned in the previous posts. This caused Collapsible D to hang out several feet from the port side of the ship, and it was more of jump out than down that they had to take. <<<<<<<
That would be establish that by 02:05am the Titanic had a 10 degree port list causing the aforementioned problem with launching of Collapsible D on the port side.
But if Collapsible C was launched only 5 minutes or so earlier on the starboard side, would it not have encountered reciprocal problems due to the same list? The boat would scrape and side along the Titanic's starboard side as Ismay, Carter and the others were lowered.
Are there any specific eyewitness accounts from survivors in or around Collapsible C stating that this happened? If not,would it not lend support to to those who feel that Collapsible C was launched 15 or 20 minutes (rather than 5 minutes) before Collapsible D? |
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
Username: ioan
Post Number: 96
Registered: 3-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, June 4, 2009 - 10:08 am: |
|
Rowe at the American Inquiry
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. (…)
Senator Burton: You are sure you rubbed going down?
Mr. Rowe: Yes, Sir. (…) It took us a good five minutes to lower the boat on account of this rubbing going down.
And there are still more. Even Bruce Ismay report of that list! |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 367
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 4, 2009 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Arun,
Hello, how are you? Good point regarding the list and how descriptions of it can further give clues as to the sequence or timing of the boat launchings.
As far as Collapsible C, Quartermaster Rowe and Bruce Ismay testified about the list to port causing difficulty (as Ioannis mentioned in the post above), and others mentioned this boat catching on the rivets as it lowered, and the boat having to be pushed away from the side of the ship as a result. Emily Goldsmith gave a detailed description describing the very same thing.
Ismay testified as follows:
Senator FLETCHER.
How far did you have to lower the collapsible boat from the boat deck to the water?
Mr. ISMAY.
It was very difficult to judge, because we had considerable difficulty in getting our boat down at all.
Senator FLETCHER.
You did not have enough men?
Mr. ISMAY.
The ship had quite a list to port. Consequently this canvas boat, this collapsible boat, was getting hung up on the outside of the ship, and she had to rub right along her, and we had to try to shove her out, and we had to get the women to help to shove to get her clear of the ship. The ship had listed over that way.
I hope all of you have a great day.
Kind regards,
Tad |
Arun Vajpey
Member
Username: zekenwolf
Post Number: 221
Registered: 4-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, June 4, 2009 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Thank for that information Ioannis and Tad. I have asked a list related question in the "events during sinking" sub-forum that might have a bearing on this and other lifeboats being launched. Please see if you can help. |
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
