Order of lifeboat launching
| Author
| Message
|
    
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 1913
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 5:24 am: |       |
The most recent posts have been moved to here. Please continue the discussion in this thread and not in the Ismay one. I will not make this request again.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 12:50 pm: | |
Another tidbit of information for those reading this thread regarding the testimony of Samuel Hemming and how Senan characterized it. Contrary to what he says, it further shows that Collapsible A *was not* swung out, and is further indication that Collapsible C left later in the sinking that the British Inquiry suggested.
Senan posted this portion of Hemming's testimony, in which I am in complete agreement about. He states that he helped Lightoller lower Collapsible D, then got up onto the Officer's Quarters to help get Collapsible B down:
<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.>
Senan then writes:
"See that, Bill? If it was lowered it was a superhuman achievement! That's even better than swung out."
And:
"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?"
Wrong again on both counts. Woolner is not talking about Collapsible A, and Hemming *is not* referring to Collapsible A either, but Collapsible C. This is not me telling you this, it is Hemming himself:
"Senator SMITH. What did you do, then, after that?
Mr. HEMMING. After I had finished with the lamps, sir, when I made my last journey they were turning out the port collapsible boat (Collapsible D). I went and assisted Mr. Lightoller to get it out.
After the boat was out I went on top of the officer's house and helped to clear away the port collapsible boat (Collapsible B) on that house. After that I went over to the starboard side. The starboard collapsible boat (Collapsible C) had just been lowered.
Senator SMITH. Do you mean lowered or pushed off?
Mr. HEMMING. Lowered. She was away from the ship."
Senan would have us believe that the boat which he describes being lowered away was Collapsible A, but then how does he explain how immediately after this statement, Hemming testifies that he proceded to pass the block to lower Collapsible A to Sixth Officer Moody, who said that they didn't need the block, but were going to leave the collapsible on the deck? Answer is that he can't. He is the part of the testimony immediately following that quoted above:
"Senator SMITH. Then what?
Mr. HEMMING. I rendered up the foremast fall, got the block on board, and held on to the block while a man equalized the parts of the fall. He said, "There is a futterfoot in the fall, which fouls the fall and the block." I says, "I have got it;" and took it out. I passed the block up to the officers' house, and Mr. Moody, the sixth officer, said: "We don't want the block. We will leave the boat (Collapsible A) on deck." I put the fall on the deck, stayed there a moment, and there was no chance of the boat being cleared away, and I went to the bridge and looked over and saw the water climbing upon the bridge. I went and looked over the starboard side, and everything was black. I went over to the port side and saw a boat off the port quarter, and I went along the port side and got up the after boat davits and slid down the fall and swam to the boat and got it.
Senator SMITH. When you say everything looked black, you mean that there were no boats in sight?
Mr. HEMMING. Everything was black over the starboard side. I could not see any boats.
Senator SMITH. You swam out to this boat that you saw?
Mr. HEMMING. Yes, sir."
Regarding this portion of the testimony, Senan stated the following:
"he's (Hemming) on top of the officers' quarters with Lightoller, and there is no starboard collapsible there or anywhere."
Wrong again. Hemming (according to his own words, which the readers can see) was on top of the Officer's Quarters with Lightoller to free Collapsible B on the port side, then crossed over and attempted to help Sixth Officer Moody with A. Seeing that the boat could not get out, he decided to swim for it.
Senan wrote:
"Hemming says the starboard side is completely clear."
No. Reread his testimony. He said that he looked over the side and did not see any boats, not that he didn't see any on the deck. If he didn't see any boats on the deck, then it would have made it hard for him to have been helping with Collapsible A just moments earlier as he stated!
The fact that Hemming mentions that the starboard collapsible (C) had just been lowered away prior to them trying to get Collapsible A down, then how he describes jumping overboard soon after Moody said they would let A float free is further indication that Collapsible C left later than stated in the inquiry. Senan can selectively pick Hemming's testimony, but he can't change what he testified to, and Hemming was there. I prefer to let Hemming's words speak for themselves. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 884
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 6:37 pm: | |
Good posts Tad.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Peter Engberg-Klarström
Member
Username: peter
Post Number: 182
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 10:31 am: | |
There can be little doubt that the Goldsmiths left in C. Mrs Goldsmith describes the boat as having about 40 occupants including four Chinese. She also described the boat bumping against the side of the ship, which didn't happen at boat D.
Peter |
David Gleicher
Member
Username: dgleicher
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:05 am: | |
Hey,
I just came across this discussion and wanted to put my two cents in. I've studied carefully the order of the preparing and launching of the lifeboats in relation to the rescue effort as a whole. I devote a long chapter on it in a book of mine that will be coming out in the next month or so entitled Rescue of the Third Class on the Titanic: A Revisionist History. It is being published as a research monograph (no. 31) in a series, Research in Maritime History associated with the Journal of Maritime History. A trade edition is likely to follow.
One conclusion I come to is that Collapsible C was almost certainly launched well before 2AM, around 1:40AM as the Mersey Commission Report concluded. I won't go into all my reasoning but crucial is the testimony of Rowe, Bright and Boxhall, the timing of the launching of Lifeboat 1, and the time Wilde, who was in charge of Collapsible C, came back to the forward end from loading boats at the after end.
On the other hand, I conclude that the Mersey Report time-table is about twenty minutes behind in the departure times of the first three boats launched from the forward end starboard, 7,5 and 3, and then the first boats launched from the after end, lifeboats 9 and 10 (no Lifeboat 10 was not the last boat launched from the after end port). Similarly Lifeboats 12, 14 and 16 were launched five to fifteen minutes earlier than the Report concludes.
Want to know why I say these things? It will all be in the book.
DG |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 892
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:49 pm: | |
Sorry David but the above post of yours does not contribute anything to this discussion. If you feel you have have some good reasons why C was launched at 1:40 rather than 2 AM why not go into it here and open it to review. Just because you said you studied carefully the order of the preparing and launching of the lifeboats in relation to the rescue effort as a whole doesn't mean you got it right. There are many people who have probably studied this issue far longer and greater in depth than you have. Some of them have posted above. The testimonies of Rowe, Bright and Boxhall you mention in passing have been available to all of us for years. Maybe if you share some of your insight to your reasoning, some of us might be inclined to read the book you say you are coming out with. Otherwise, why should we bother?
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Michael Poirier
Member
Username: mike_poirier
Post Number: 300
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 4:15 pm: | |
Hi Dave-
Always glad to see any author come out with a new Titanic book, for which just about everyone on the board will be grateful. Could you tell us a bit about the premise of the book? Perhaps a little bit on how you found new research. Congratulations and can't wait to see more on the book
Mike
Clemency: We've been torpedoed! Oh, Mother! What shall we do?
Millicent: Get the jewelry. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:36 pm: | |
David:
Is your chapter on the lowering order the same or similar as what you previously published in the THS Commutator a year or so ago?
Bill |
David Gleicher
Member
Username: dgleicher
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 9:52 pm: | |
Sam, Well I said I only was offering two cents. Also I do agree with some of the arguments that have been made in favor of a 1:40 departure for Collapsible C, particularly the contention that there is no evidence, and much to the contrary that there was any disruption in the loading of Collapsible C. The thing I am adding here is only the comment that the question of departure times needs to be addressed in a larger context.
Bill, The exchange in the Commutator was pretty narrow, I was primarily responding to your argument that Rowe was on the wrong time. At that point I was merely defending the Mersey Commission time table vis a vis Collapsible C.
What differentiates what I've done since is to integrate the question of Boat departures with the rescue effort as a whole, and to thus revise the Mersey time table in certain respects. The question of when Collapsible C was launched is inseparable from when Lifeboat 1 was launched, and when boats on the port side aft were launched as well, and the latter is inseparable from when the first boats on the forward end starboard were launched. Anyway, as I say I hope people will look at my book for a full account of all this, and more.
DG |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 6
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 4:00 am: | |
Hello David, how are you? Good I hope.
You wrote:
"Also I do agree with some of the arguments that have been made in favor of a 1:40 departure for Collapsible C, particularly the contention that there is no evidence, and much to the contrary that there was any disruption in the loading of Collapsible C."
How do you say that there is "no evidence" that there was any disruption in the loading of Collapsible C? A brief read through of this thread alone reveals just some of the ample evidence of a disturbance of some kind, and there are several accounts that were not even touched on yet. Are you familiar with all of these accounts, or are you just choosing to ignore them? There are many accounts summarized here which run contrary to that statement about there being "no evidence." I'm sorry, but I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your assessment here based on the weight of evidence.
I also find it interesting that you chose to believe that there is a 20 minute gap between the launch of Collapsible C and D, when Hugh Woolner and Bjornstrom Steffanson state that they left Collapsible C as it was leaving, then went down to A deck and crossed over barely in time to catch Collapsible D as it was lowered past them. This certainly seems to run contrary to that belief that there was much more than a few minutes gap between the launch of Collapsible C and D.
Kind regards,
Tad Fitch |
David Gleicher
Member
Username: dgleicher
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 5:25 am: | |
Tad,
Good to hear from you. I think Senan, Teri and others have more than adequately characrterized the lack of evidence of any problems launching Collapsible C, as well as the ample, direct and very clear evidence to the contrary. Woolner's testimony is far too ambiguous and confused, I think, to support your position absent any other more substantial basis for it.
There is one thing I agree with you, Bill and George about, in a qualified way, and that is that the boat Woolner likely was talking about was Collapsible C, but around 1:30 or so. I speculate in my book that the flashes in the air he thought were from a pistol could very well have been the last one or two rockets being fired by Boxhall, as Collapsible C was being prepared, and the orders from an Officer to clear the area may have been Boxhall as well, who testified to doing just that, getting people out of the way before firing.
As for the twenty minute delay between the departures of Collapsible C and D this was accounted for by Bright. Lifeboat 2--which was launched within five minutes of Collapsible C, around 1:45 with Captain Smith and Wilde in charge--occupied the davits needed by Collapsible D.
DG |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 7
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 7:27 am: | |
Hello again David, how are you? I hope that you had a nice day.
You wrote:
"I think Senan, Teri and others have more than adequately characrterized the lack of evidence of any problems launching Collapsible C, as well as the ample, direct and very clear evidence to the contrary."
I disagree and think that the posts in this thread speak for themselves. I also feel that myself and others have "adequately characterized" the evidence of a disturbance while launching Collapsible C, as well as the ample, direct and very clear evidence regarding it. The evidence goes far beyond Woolner (Thayer, Harry Senior, the Goldsmith's, the whole list of others included in this thread which has not been addressed by Senan or yourself).
Not to come off as rude, as I am always glad to hear differing opinions and constructive criticism (as long as it isn't coupled with a personal attack as has been the case previously by some individuals in this thread), but do you have any evidence to add to this discussion? We have already addressed and discussed the information mentioned by Senan and Teri, so your saying that you agree with it and that you have something coming out in the future about the subject is not advancing the discussion at all. This isn't a popularity contest.
You wrote:
"Woolner's testimony is far too ambiguous and confused, I think, to support your position absent any other more substantial basis for it."
As discussed in this thread, there is a more substantial basis for it. If you choose not to address the evidence presented already or opt not to present your own evidence, then I do not know what to say. Nobody can say for 100% certain everything that happened during the sinking, but just because evidence disagrees with your opinion doesn't mean it isn't "substantial." Calling it ambiguous and confused without providing evidence that shows that to be the case does not make it go away. In fact, the approach that you have used in your last two posts could be construed as an attempt to talk down to us, which I am sure is not your intention at all.
You wrote:
"As for the twenty minute delay between the departures of Collapsible C and D this was accounted for by Bright. Lifeboat 2--which was launched within five minutes of Collapsible C, around 1:45 with Captain Smith and Wilde in charge--occupied the davits needed by Collapsible D."
What evidence do you have that indicates Lifeboat # 2 and Collapsible D were launched so close together? The rest of your times seem to be relying rather heavily on that point. You also are relying an awful lot on Quartermaster Bright, while ignoring that Woolner and Steffanson left Collapsible C and barely made it to Collapsible D in time, hardly indicative of a twenty minute gap in between the launching of those two boats. Those two men were at both of those boats as they lowered, while Quartermaster Bright was only speculating about when Collapsible C left.
Just for everyone here, Quartermaster Bright testified that he did not see Collapsible C lowered away for himself and could not say how much time elapsed between the launch of C and the launch of D. His later surmise that "I suppose it was 20 minutes or more" was based on guesswork.
For those that are not aware of it, David published a rebuttal to our article in The Titanic Commutator # 167. In that rebuttal he also claimed that on page 837 of the American Inquiry Quartermaster Bright says that Collapsible C was launched at 1:30 a.m. Nowhere on that page of the inquiry does Bright make that claim. Bright actually says that Collapsibles C and D were the last two boats on the ship, demonstrating that Collapsible C was launched after Lifeboats # 2 and # 4.
It seems that we are retreading a lot of old ground here David. You told Bill that you have new evidence, but based on the evidence that you have discussed so far, it seems that your claims are the very same ones that you used in your rebuttal to our article a few years ago, which we responded to in kind. Maybe we should post our response to your rebuttal here for the benefit of the readers.
Difference in opinions aside, I hope that you are having a good week and that the weather is better at your location than it is here right this second.
Kind regards,
Tad Fitch |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 893
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 4:34 pm: | |
I guess I'll add some additional information to this discussion which has not been addressed as far as I'm aware of.
When Rowe left in C he said: "When we left the ship the fore well-deck was awash." He also said "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...It took us a good five minutes to lower the boat on account of this rubbing going down...When the boat was in the water the well deck was submerged."
There is a big difference between the well deck being only "awash" we they left the ship and the well deck being "submerged" after they reached the water.
Correlate this to what Bright said: "When I left, the forecastle was going under water...What we call the forecastle head was just going under water. That would be about 20 feet lower than the bridge, I should say."
For the well deck to be submerged, not just awash, the forecastle head would have to be under water. This means that by the time C reached the water, which took a good 5 minutes if not more, the forecastle head must have gone under. To me this says that C left 5 to 10 minutes at most ahead of D. I cannot see a 20 minute gap there unless Rowe's 5 minutes was really 20.
The other evidence about C being launched much later than 11:40 unadjusted Titanic time comes from an external source. Before I get into the details, consider what happened after the last distress signal was sent up. [I inserted the boat numbers into the following testimony to keep things clear.]
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 [C]. Rowe went away to help to get the other one out, and I went away myself...I assisted to get it up...As soon as the boat [C] was up in place I was sent away to clear another one in place [D]...I have only learned since, that Rowe, the man that was working with me, got into that boat [C]. He was in charge of the boat, Rowe was. I was in charge of the other one [D]."
What we have here is that Bright first first went to help crewmen complete the setting up and swinging out of C on the starboard side, and then was sent over to the port side to work on setting up D. He did not assist in the loading of C. Rowe, on the other hand, had assisted in the loading C and was put in charge. The loading process began soon after Bright went to the port side to work on D. I'll leave it to the reader to guess at how long Bright spent at C before he went over to the port side to work on D. But then you still must add a few more minutes to load C before they began the lower it.
OK. So when did all of this begin? According to both Rowe and Bright, it was after the last rocket was sent up. When was that? "I saw the last of the rockets as near as I can say about 1.40." This came from 2/O Herbert Stone on the Californian. When then asked "That would be twenty minutes between seeing the last rocket and the sending of Gibson to the Captain?" Stone's response was a simple "Yes." Now the time that Gibson went down to talk to Capt. Lord we can pin down with some certainty. According to Gibson it was "Five minutes past two by the wheelhouse clock." So Stone's estimate for the last rocket at 1:40 AM Californian time was about right.
Californian time was 1:50 ahead of NY time. Titanic time was about 2 hours ahead of NY time. That means the last distress signal fired was about 1:50 AM Titanic time if Stone's estimate was close. Now add the time that Bright was at C plus the loading time spent there, and you are easily coming up to 2 AM if not a little later.
Bottom line, there is obviously no way for C to have been launched as early as 1:40 Titanic time.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 8
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 5:41 pm: | |
Excellent post Sam, very insightful! The bit about the Californian is very interesting and correlates with the other evidence of a later launch time for Collapsible C. As far as I am aware, "Lordites" and "Anti-Lordites" both are in full agreement that the Californian saw the Titanic's rockets, even if the two sides cannot agree on whether the ships themselves were in visual range of one-another.
I find it interesting that if you look at the testimony, you see the rapid progression of the sinking, which reveals the timing and does indicate a later launch time for Collapsible C. We have:
1) Quartermaster Rowe's testimony of the forward Well-Deck being "awash" when Collapsible C began to leave and "submerged" by the time they reached the water. There is no debate that Collapsible C left before D.
2) The we have Quartermaster Bright's testimony of the forecastle (which he estimated as being 20 feet below the bridge) submerging as he left the ship in Collapsible D. As Sam pointed out, for the well deck to be submerged, not just awash, the forecastle head would have to be under water. This means that by the time C reached the water, which took a good 5 minutes if not more, the forecastle head must have gone under.
3) The rate of sinking is consistent with what Hugh Woolner and Bjornstrom Steffanson experienced. As Collapsible C was swung out and began to be lowered, they went down to A deck. While they were there (Woolner says "a very few minutes"), water began pouring over the A-Deck railing. Collapsible D was at that time being lowered past Woolner and Steffanson, so they jumped down into it. The boat touched down in the water right after they leapt, in fact, Woolner's feet dangled into the water as he hung on to the edge as it was lowering.
Of further interest, Woolner estimated that Collapsible D was about "nine feet out from the side of A deck" as it was lowered past them. This indicates that there was a fairly severe list to port at the time, which according to the testimony of Quartermaster Rowe, the ship did not list severely in that direction until Collapsible C was being lowered.
So we have the well deck awash, then submerged by the time Collapsible C reached the water, and the forecastle submerging as Quartermaster Bright left the ship in Collapsible D. As Sam pointed out, the well-deck could not flood completely without the forecastle being submerged, so this definitely indicates how close together C and D left. Woolner and Steffanson barely made it to Collapsible D, which was nearing the water as A-Deck began to flood.
This is all indicative of a 2:00 AM or later launch time. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 12:59 am: | |
David:
Thanks for the reply.
What you describe doing with your newest, is exactly what George, Tad and I did with our article - intergrate the departures with the rescue as a whole. Where we differ is that we did not attempt to revise the Mersey timeline, but to figure it out on our own. Obviously, we came to many of the same conclusions as the British Inquiry - but with a number of differences. Collapsible C, #10, and #6 and #8.
Sam and Tad - thanks for your postings.
Bill |
David Gleicher
Member
Username: dgleicher
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 3:53 am: | |
Bill,
I've always appreciated being able to discuss these matters and others with you, so though we disagree I don't feel you (or Tad or George) have ever been disagreeable. I refer to your work a good deal in my book, as you will see, and I am looking forward to your feedback.
DG |
Katherine Laura Robinson
Member
Username: kate_robinson
Post Number: 12
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 4:17 am: | |
Frequent references to the “audience” or “readership” in this topic have tempted me into actually posting. I think I could be considered a member of that “readership.” (Given my number of posts, I doubt that I qualify as much else.) So I’m not trying to advance brilliant arguments here; more like impressions and questions that I had while reading the topic. I normally don’t open my mouth wide enough to put my foot in it, but maybe everyone should risk that once in a while…
General impression:
I wanted to accept Senan’s theory at first, mainly because I have a strong interest in Collapsible A and any possible mayhem thereat. However, as the discussion progressed, it seemed to me that he was using a confident, sarcastic tone to make very debatable points seen beyond dispute. No one can prove absolutely whether or not Woolner lied, or what various people did with their watches. Personally, I haven’t quite made up my mind about the launch times, but I don’t think the chaotic lifeboat described by Woolner, Gracie, and Thayer was Collapsible A. It’s hard for me to believe that everyone mistook a boat being washed from the deck for a boat being lowered from the davits. Having all the people washed out of it is hardly “getting away safely.”
I have to say (or not, but I guess I’m saying it) that tone of some of these posts is really…off-putting. It seems like the main participants have (California-related?) issues with each other beyond this topic. I’m not sure whether Senan, in particular, just prefers this style of argument, or whether he actually feels that much contempt for people who disagree with him. Maybe I shouldn’t let anyone’s tone bias me, but I do get suspicious of people who sound like they have axes to grind.
Random thoughts:
It’s not all that relevant, but I also think that Snow might have mis-spoken when he claimed to have been on the “starboard” side. He ended up in B, and most water-to-collapsible survivors reached the collapsibles that they had been closest to when the sinking occurred. But as for the boat being damaged, Lightoller did say this about B:
“Hour by hour the compartments in this collapsible boat were surely filling with water, due, no doubt to the rough and ready treatment she had received when dumped incontinently from the top of our quarters, with a crash on to the boat deck…”
Peter, thank you for posting the information about the Goldsmiths. I thought I had read that somewhere, but I couldn’t find it. I did notice some interesting but wild stuff in a Collapsible C topic when I was looking for the Goldsmith information.
Post by Michael Findlay:
“Just last month, Mary Nackid's grandson told me that his grandmother, who didn't like to speak about the disaster, told him that she saw two men from Lebanon shot as she entered her lifeboat. She was so upset about it that she covered up her husband, who had managed to get in the boat with her, with her skirt. Other women covered him as well according to Mrs. Nackid.”
Post by Inger Sheil, quoting an article:
“Abraham Hyman, of Manchester, England, who was coming to this country to join a brother in Paterson, N.J., is one of the passengers who told about seeing Chief Officer Wilde rushing around with a revolver in his hand. Mr. Hyman was a third class passenger, and is one of the few men on that list that escaped with his life. He said after the lifeboat in which he left the steamship put out some distance shrill cries and screams could be heard distinctly.
There was not much panic before he left the Titanic, he said, except when the chief officer fired into a belligerent group of third class passengers. A man standing next to him had his chin shot off, he said.”
However, others in the topic said that Mr. Hyman was more likely in Boat 13 than C.
Response to Senan’s 10 points:
1. You do have a valid point that Rowe didn’t mention, and directly denied, chaos at Boat C. Same with Ismay and Pearcey. There’s a frustrating discrepancy here, and I don’t think choosing which side to believe (crew or passengers, official or unofficial) is an easy matter. What bothers me is that you seem to have changed your own position. In The Irish Aboard Titanic, you express deep skepticism about White Star employees’ testimony at the inquiries. You also criticize Lord Mersey for ignoring passengers’ statements to the press. Now you’re defending the White Star employees and refusing to accept any unofficial passenger statements.
2. Possibly because they were “under the thwarts,” and the people clearing the boat didn’t realize that they’d missed a few. Alternatively, they might have sneaked in and hidden at some earlier stage, especially if it’s true that C was sitting around by itself for some time while officers worked at other boats. Nobody seems to know how that “Italian” got into Boat 6, either.
3. “Any” meaning any of the people who testified? I guess this is part of the “testimony reliability” issue. Maybe also the “crew vs. passenger account” issue.
4. *laughs* Yeah, I guess that would make him look rather bad. I think this also falls into the testimony reliability and passenger/crew categories, and my comment is the same as for question 1.
5. Hm…Was Woolner really the only one who placed Murdoch at C? I honestly have no idea. I tried to check the references on Bill Wormstedt’s page, but I don’t see any page numbers in the online American Inquiry transcripts. I assume he was using a written version. I’d like to hear more about this question.
6. Wilde might have already headed over to Collapsible D at that point. I’m not sure whether you accept that Wilde actually was at D, since you cite Lightoller’s comment about last seeing Wilde long before the ship sank as evidence that C left long before D. Even the British Inquiry has D leaving at 2:05, and Lightoller wrote in his autobiography that he saw Wilde there. Do you believe Lights was mistaken about Wilde having ordered him into D, since Titanic and Other Ships, like Thayer’s account, was written years after the sinking? Even considering that, I don’t see what Wilde’s presence at C has to do with Lightoller’s last sighting of him, since Lights was on the port side and probably never saw Wilde at C anyway. I do wonder whether Wilde had enough time to launch D, on the opposite side of the ship, five minutes after C.
7. More or less the same issue as question 6.
8. People have already covered the time adjustments as regards Weikman’s watch. You never did answer the question of how, accepting Weikman’s 1:50 and the British Inquiry times, boats managed to get launched when the boat deck was already underwater.
9. Woolner does claim the boat he saw was “swung out,” whereas Collapsible A…I was very confused about why you at first seem to suggest extreme chaos at A, and then suddenly start arguing that A ended up on the davits, actually being lowered. And why on earth did you cite Hemming as evidence for this, ignoring his conversation with Moody when A was still on the roof of the officers’ quarters? Now that I re-read your post, I get the idea that you weren’t actually arguing for A being swung out, but were using Hemming’s supposed claim that it had been as an example of ridiculous faulty evidence. However, you that doesn’t change the fact that you ignored the part of the account which makes it clear that Hemming wasn’t talking about A.
10. Bill *has* supplied other accounts similar to Woolner’s, especially that of Amy Stanley, who mentioned a warning shot in a private letter…not in a newspaper. I must say I’m puzzled that you seem so skeptical about newspaper stories now, considering some of the things I read in your book. If we agree to ignore the possibility that Mrs. Goldsmith and Mrs. Whabee noticed shooting, may we also dismiss Margaret Murphy’s allegations that John Kiernan was “beaten by sailors,” that crewmen shut hatches on “trapped third-class passengers,” and that a Chinese man was killed in the vicinity of Boat 16? (This isn’t a rhetorical or sarcastic question, by the way. I really would like to know whether you’ve changed your mind about any of these things, especially in light of your article about that famous boat-deck portrait.) After relating Margaret’s story, you say, “So much for the orderly lowering of boats described at the official inquiries.” If you believe that ugly incidents at the aft port boats might have been “whitewashed,” why couldn’t the same have happened with Collapsible C?
-Kate |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 5:22 am: | |
Hello Kate, how are you? Excellent post! I just wanted to say that I thought you raised some very good points in your post and put some things into perspective. It is always good to get someone else's opinions and views on these matters, particularly since you have no reason to be biased and do not have an ax to grind and are a member of the, as you said, "readership."
As I've said, I welcome discussion and constructive criticism, but personal attacks are uncalled for no matter what the circumstances. In my opinion, it is just unprofessional and childish. It is interesting how certain people seem to have an unhealthy obsession with criticizing George and Bill, and often go out of their way to attack their research or them personally, even without reason to do so. I am not sure why that is, but it does make for an unpleasant tone to some of these discussions unfortunately.
What I can say is that I can state with full and 100% confidence that George, Bill and myself would be more than willing to reconsider our views if confronted with evidence that disproved our position. As it stands, we have not seen any reason to do so, and feel that these discussions have strengthened our conclusions rather than weaken them.
An answer to one of your questions, both Wilde and Murdoch were reportedly seen at Collapsible C, and Thayer stated (in 1912, 1920 and 1940) that he saw Purser McElroy there. Woolner and Fireman Harry Senior specifically mentioned First Officer Murdoch firing shots into the air at this boat, while Thayer believed it was McElroy who did this. Many others mention shots fired at Collapsible C by an officer, but could not, or did not identify him. Woolner seemed to have recognized Murdoch's voice (he was the only Scottish officer), which is how it appears he identified him.
As an aside given your interest in the topic, I do believe that the evidence indicates that there were shots fired, potentially at people, during the last few moments before water came onto the boat deck during the attempted launch of Collapsible A, but that is a topic for another discussion down the road.
Again, thank you for your observations and insights. You have given us some good perspective and food for thought. I hope that you'll have a nice weekend.
Kindest regards,
Tad |
Peter Engberg-Klarström
Member
Username: peter
Post Number: 183
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 3:24 pm: | |
Hello everybody. Many interesting thoughts from you all, I must say! One other thought: Do we actually know who entered boat C and what did they say about the launching time ? I have investigated the interviews relevant to those known to have been in the boat and there is, strangely, not much said about it. QM Rowe stated he thought boat C had been in the water about 20 minutes when the Titanic sank, Pearcey stated 'twenty minutes to two', and Hilda Hellström (who I believe was in that boat considering her statements) said they were very close to the ship when it sank. That's it! Ismay didn't want to see the disaster and Carter didn't mention anything about it as far as I know. The Goldsmiths, Badman, Roth...nothing substantial.....
Personally I always thought C left at two o'clock rather than 1.40, mainly based on Rowe's testimony.
Also: Abraham Hyman seems indeed to have left in 13, he describes his boat almost being swamped by a jet of water from the ship's side among other things.
Best regards,
Peter |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 5:01 pm: | |
Katherine - thanks for the the intelligent comments on this thread!
If you still have questions about my references about Murdoch at C, let me know, and I'll dig them up. I see Tad did list some, though. I'll be out of town for a few days, but back early next week and can find them then.
Tad is speaking for all of us regarding our willingness to change our minds when presented with good hard evidence.
Peter: regarding the specific times. As you know, many people listed different times for the same events, and it is hard to come up with exact times. What we've tried to do, in our lifeboat chronology, was first present a *sequence* of events. Then, try to fit that sequence into the timeline of the entire sinking. Being we feel Collapsible D lowered very shortly before the collapse of Funnel #1, and Collapsible C lowered shortly before that, it puts all these events into a short time frame, shortly before the final sinking. Of course that also ties into what Bright and Rowe saw of the foredecks going under shortly before and during their leaving of the ship.
Bill |
Peter Engberg-Klarström
Member
Username: peter
Post Number: 184
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 5:44 pm: | |
Bill, I agree. I seem to remember Rowe stating he was guessing it was 20 minutes after C left that the ship sank. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 14
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 10:34 pm: | |
Hello again Peter, how are you? Thank you for your interesting observations. You're right, Quartermaster Rowe did say that the ship sank around 20 minutes after Collapsible C left. Bill and I also agree that Abraham Hyman was most likely rescued in Lifeboat # 13, likewise based on him describing the water from the condenser nearly swamping his lifeboat.
I hope that you'll have a nice weekend.
Kind regards,
Tad |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 7:11 pm: | |
Regarding additional evidence of shots fired at Collapsible C, one account that has not been mentioned thus-far is the account of crewmember Walter Hurst. Hurst was rescued aboard Collapsible B, and wrote of shots fired at Collapsible C in his memoirs in the 1950s.
Hurst said that there was some trouble at this boat, and that the "chief officer" fired off two shots. Hurst said that he was not close enough to see if anyone was hit.
There is an additional account from Hugh Woolner which was written onboard the Carpathia and which has not been mentioned so far. It was in Walter Lord's collection. In this account (which matches Woolner's Senate Inquiry testimony exactly), Woolner again mentions the shots fired at Collapsible C, and the fact that this boat was being lowered away, again contrary to the suggestion that the boat he was near was actually Collapsible A:
"We then turned our attention to a boat ready on the starboard side, where there was shouting going on.
We saw the first officer twice fire a pistol in the air ordering a crowd of the crew out of the boat. We ran in and helped bundle the men onto the deck and then we got a lot, about ten, Italian and other foreign women into that boat and when we saw it was being safely lowered we went away and made a final search on the deck below."
Woolner also gives a description of how Steffanson and him left the ship, which gives further indication of the late-launch time of Collapsible D, which immediately followed the launch of Collapsible C. He says that the flooding on A-Deck was so rapid after they left, that if they had waited any longer, they might have been pinned to the roof. That indicates that the flooding was getting near the Boat Deck as Collapsible D pulled away. Woolner also states that they rowed hard, but only got 150 yards away before the ship sank:
"Looking out we saw the sea pouring over the bows and through the front of the "Bridge Deck [A deck]. Just opposite us was the collapsible boat which we had seen being hooked onto the last davits on the port side. She was being lowered into the sea and hung about nine feet away from us. I said: “Let’s make a jump for it! There is plenty of room in her bows!” Bjornstrom replied “Right you are!”
We skipped on the gunwale, balanced ourselves for a moment and leaped into the air. He landed fair and square into the boat. I landed on my chest and caught hold with my hands on the gunwale and slipped off backwards. I hauled myself up with my arms and got my right foot over the gunwale. Bjornstrom said, “All right, I’ve got you,” and levered me up by my right foot. But by that time my left leg was in the sea, so it was a near thing. The water was pouring in through the door we had just walked through. It rose so rapidly that if we had waited another minute we should have been pinned between the deck and its roof. We first hauled in another man passenger who was in the sea, and then I climbed over a number of women and children and got out two oars. Bjornstrom took one, I took another, a steward got out another and another man took the fourth.
I handed him a row lock so that he could steer and we began to pull like the deuce to get clear of the ship, which I knew was doomed; but I was anxious to get away from the suction when the big ship went under. I never pulled harder in my life. About thirty women and children were in the boat, with only three oars to pull. However we got away from her and got clear, but only about 150 yards, when I saw the monster take a huge tilt forward and her stern came clean out of the water at least eighty feet."
Walter Lord's notes record the following regarding Woolner's account:
“Woolner mentioned that as they settled into Boat D, between 2:05 and 2:10 am, and looked back to see the promenade (A) Deck forward flooding up to ceiling-level – [with] the water now approaching floor-level on the bridge – a steward in the boat (John Hardy) remarked that this was going to cost a pretty penny to fix up in dry dock. Woolner was astonished that anyone at this late stage could convince himself that the ship was going to get anywhere near dry dock. Hardy, he guessed, must have been the last man to think so." |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 8:26 pm: | |
Thanks for posting that account, Tad! Good stuff!
Bill |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 4:41 pm: | |
Here is another piece of information that Bill Wormstedt noticed in the British Inquiry testimony, which was not mentioned in this thread. This gives further indication that Collapsible C left around 2:00 rather than 1:40.
Edward Brown:
10630. How long from the launching of that collapsible boat with Mr. Bruce Ismay in it, was it that you saw the women? - I suppose it took us
about 10 or 12 minutes to get the other boat down.
Brown is talking about Collapsible A. If Collapsible C left at 1:40 (which as stated in our article and in this thread, we do not believe the evidence supports), then Collapsible A would have been available for loading at or around 1:55 AM. More than enough time to get it loaded and launched.
However, if Collapsible C left around 2:00, then according to Brown, it would have taken until 2:10 or 2:12 to get Collapsible A to the deck - and no time for much else at that point other than trying to get the falls hooked up before the water reached the Boat Deck. Brown's own description of events fits this. |
David Haisman
Member
Username: haisey
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 9:07 am: | |
The above posts are interesting and testimony driven and we have to believe to a certain degree, what has been written during the abandon ship process.
I am in the process of writing a 4000 word article on Welwyn, Radial, Gooseneck and GRT davits along with Moulded, Clinker, Carvel and Diagonally constructed Lifeboats.
I hope a '' Titanic '' journal may consider printing this article later in the year and hopefully many readers may get a better idea of what was involved for those poor souls on Titanic's boat deck throughout that night.
David Haisman |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:56 am: | |
Hello David, how are you? Thanks for your thoughts on the above posts.
"I am in the process of writing a 4000 word article on Welwyn, Radial, Gooseneck and GRT davits along with Moulded, Clinker, Carvel and Diagonally constructed Lifeboats."
Sounds interesting! Please keep us updated on the progress of your article, I'm sure that one of the journals will publish it.
All my best,
Tad |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 945
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 3:52 pm: | |
Interesting post Tad. The issue I have with Brown's account is timing. Reading his entire testimony he says he first went to No. 5 and helped load it, then to No. 3 and did the same, then to No. 1 and did same, and then to Collapsible C and got it onto the davits of No. 1 and help load it with Ismay there. At another point in his testimony he says he didn't hear the order to launch No. 1 or see it go down because he was cutting Collapsible C loose from under it. So apparently they were preparing C while they were in the process of launching No. 1. Yet, according to the launch times in your fine article written with Bill and George there is a gap of about an hour between the launching of No. 1 and the launching of "C". This gap in time does not at all come across from reading Brown's testimony. The impression given is that as soon as "C" was made ready under the davits they began to fill it up. It should not take an hour to do that. Just compare to the time it took to get "D" ready after No. 2 was sent away. Any ideas?
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 33
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 9:41 pm: | |
Speaking for myself, I think that the gap mainly had to do with other circumstances unfolding on the deck of the ship as she was sinking. While loading and lowering Lifeboat #1 around 1:05 AM, Lowe and Murdoch had trouble finding enough people willing to go, or on the scene to step into the boat, which is why only 12 went.
Right after loading #1, Murdoch went aft to help load the aft starboard boats (he was seen at #9 #11, #13 and #15 before finishing up there in time to cross over and help with #10), and Lowe crossed over to the aft port boats to help there. There were large crowds of passengers there, and the officers probably felt that they were needed at that location rather then waiting around for Collapsible C to get hooked up and ready.
With the ship noticeably down by the head and the large crowds, there was some panic beginning to set in at those aft locations, with, according to the inquiry testimony, it escalating to people being beaten back with a tiller and warning shots being fired at #14 and a rush of some kind at #15.
Once Lowe and Murdoch left the forward starboard side of the boat deck to help with the situation at the aft boats, there were no officers on the scene to oversee the loading and launch of C (Capt. Smith, Wilde, Lightoller and Moody being occupied with the aft boats as well according to eyewitnesses, Pitman having already left, and Boxhall being on the bridge signalling and firing rockets).
Based on the testimony of where they were seen, Wilde went from the aft port boats to help with #2 before heading to Collapsible C, and Murdoch appears to have gone right from #10 to C. If you look at the following chart on Bill's webpage, it shows the movements of the officers as best as can be ascertained from the inquiry testimony. The movements described above make more sense when you look at the graphic:
http://home.comcast.net/~bwormst/titanic/revised.html
As far as why Brown's account does not make any mention of the gap, I cannot really say. There would have been a 40 to 55 minute gap between the lowering of #1 and Collapsible C regardless of whether one believes the evidence to show that C left at 1:40 or 2:00, so that cannot explain the difference.
Brown's testimony rarely gives any specific indication of how much time lapsed between him helping with one boat and going to another (the time between Collapsible C and A being an exception), so I would tend to believe that he simply did not give that detail, since he did not give many details about the timing in general (although I could see how it could be interpreted that he rapidly went from one boat to another). |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 4:06 am: | |
Sam - I have to agree with Tad on this.
Except that, since we have a time of 55 minutes between the 'launch' of No. 1 and Collapsible C, it may have actually been only 30 minutes or so between the launch of 1, and starting to load C. Possibly they did get C ready and put on the davits immediately upon No. 1 launch, and due to no officers present, the boat just sat there unattended until the officers got back to that area? Maybe Brown did something else during this time, but it just wasn't important enough to mention, or even remember.
Seems to me that as various parts of the Boat Deck got busy (passenger uproar?), the officers congregated to that area. That could explain the seeming journey of many officers and deck hands to the port aft boats from the starboard side, as passengers piled up there. When the aft boat, both sides, were pretty much done launching, the remaining officers headed forward to finish there - 2 and 4 and D on the port, and C on the starboard.
Bill |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 34
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 4:22 am: | |
I agree Bill. An inordinate number of officers arrived on the scene and aided in the loading of the aft boats, particularly the 4 port aft boats (Smith, Wilde, Murdoch, Lightoller, Lowe and Moody are all mentioned in the testimony as having been on the scene). Compare that to the 4 starboard aft boats, which Murdoch handled largely by himself, with some assistance from Moody, who was on A-Deck during the loading of #13 and #15. There was a rush of some kind on #15 at that time, probably as people realized it was the last boat in the aft starboard area.
Once the aft boats were gone, there started to be commotion at the remaining forward boats too as people realized that they were the last lifeboats left. The commotion at C described by eyewitnesses must have caused a few minutes further delay at least with that boat. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 947
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 4:31 am: | |
Bill, Tad:
I'm not arguing. I was just wondering what Brown was doing all that time. I don't see he him just hanging around at C unless he was there with only one or two others while everyone else left to go elsewhere. And he was a steward, not a seaman, although there was a shortage of the latter types by then. According to Bright, when they finished with the distress signals and Boxhall left in No. 2 he, Bright, went to help set up and swing out C on the starboard side before going to work on D on the port side. So clearly C was not ready for loading until after No. 2 was launched. That still leaves a gap of about 45 minutes for Brown to fill. What would he be doing during that time unless it was he and maybe one other working alone to set up the sides of the collapsible? Otherwise, I would assume he would have gone to help work on one of the other boats that were being filled aft. But his story does not indicate that to be the case.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 35
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 5:17 am: | |
Hi Sam, how are you? Good I hope.
"What would he be doing during that time unless it was he and maybe one other working alone to set up the sides of the collapsible? Otherwise, I would assume he would have gone to help work on one of the other boats that were being filled aft. But his story does not indicate that to be the case."
That is a very good question. As you've said, maybe there were only a couple of them working on C during this time. Since he wasn't a seaman, perhaps Brown (and whoever else may have been on the scene) were struggling to get the canvas cover off, the sides raised up, and the block and tackle hooked up on their own. I suppose this could have taken him a half an hour until the loading resumed. Then again, maybe they were smoking cigarettes and standing around waiting for one of the officers to come back, although I agree with you that it is unlikely that he would have just waited around for that long without helping elsewhere unless he was occupied with some task at C. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1201
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 3:12 am: | |
Based on the discussions in this thread, other discussions here at ET in the last few months, and other information we've discovered, George Behe, Tad Fitch and I have made some minor revisions to our Lifeboat Launching article at http://home.comcast.net/%7Ebwormst/titanic/lifeboats/lifeboats.htm
Our conclusions haven't changed - in fact, we are even more convinced of our conclusions than before.
Bill |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 1:12 pm: | |
I recently read Rowe's letter to Walter Lord, c.1955, which is held by the National Maritime Museum. He says that after being lowered, and pulling for ten minutes, they heard a noise "like an immense heap of gravel being tipped from a hopper and then [The Titanic] disappeared".
Which would put the lowering of boat C closer to 2.00am than 1.45am. |
João Carlos Pereira Martins
Member
Username: keen_on_titanic
Post Number: 296
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 2:14 pm: | |
That's right, I suppose. The last evidences show that boat C could have been launched close to 2.00 instead of 1.45. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 135
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 7:49 pm: | |
Hi Paul, how are you? Interesting information, thank you for posting it.
I hope that you are doing well.
Kind regards,
Tad |
Timothy Trower
Member
Username: tjtrower
Post Number: 447
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 12:45 am: | |
In the grand scheme of determining the exact sequence of the launching of the lifeboats, and with knowing that #2, #4 and C and D were, indeed actually launched from the falls; since A and B floated off of the ship probably at the same time, does that make life boat #2 or collapsible B the preantepenultimate boat launched?
Tim Trower
Please visit www.TitanicBranson.com, the World's Largest Titanic Museum Attraction |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1776
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 2:36 pm: | |
C Tim.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1900
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 7:11 pm: | |
Rubbish, B+ at best. |
Timothy Trower
Member
Username: tjtrower
Post Number: 451
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 11:29 pm: | |
Naw, at least an A for effort! (But Sam is right -- that should have been C.)
Tim Trower
Please visit www.TitanicBranson.com, the World's Largest Titanic Museum Attraction |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 1016
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 8:19 pm: | |
”I have now been able to speak to Mr Rowe again (by telephone) and, in answer to your question – NO, he definitely did not adjust his watch.”
This reply, stamped in receipt by the MMSA, is now in the files of the Merseyside Maritime Museum, reference D/LO 3/4/24. (Publication permission granted by Nautilus, successor organisation to the MMSA. [snip - moderator].) |
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
US $474.60 1 Bid
