| Author |
Message |
    
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 467
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 12:43 am: | 
|
Hello Fellow Titanic Researchers and Enthusiast. I just read about this book on Titanicbooksite.com, which describes the book as an expanded and revised version of "A Ship Accused". a book which was very much enjoyed by me, as are his other works. so I seriously considering getting this book. mainly for the expanded material. although I'm not sure how much there is, so I wondering if anyone had read this book and would be able to give there opinion.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:56 am: |
|
So - Molony decided to steal the name of Dave Billnitzer's long-standing web-site for an expanded version of an old book, hmmm?
See Dave's web-site at
http://home.earthlink.net/~dnitzer/Titanic.html
Bill
|
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 468
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:59 am: |
|
I suppose so.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:55 am: |
|
Jesse: I have not seen Senan's previous book "A Ship Accused" so I cannot compare the two to say just how much material in it is new. I did however decide to purchase a copy of this one since I consider myself a student of the issue, as well as other issues and topics related to the Titanic. As you know, I also have had several exchanges with Mr. Molony on more than one occasion on this site regarding certain aspects of the Californian affair and found that not to be a very pleasant experience unless you held the same view of things as he does. However, in the interest of truly understand all points of views and arguments, I now have a copy of this book which I only begun to read.
The one thing, however, that I did find a bit disappointing with the book as soon as I opened it up had nothing to do you with what was written, how it was organized, or anything like that. My disappointment had to do with how the book was printed. The type size in my opinion is just too small. My first impression was why does the text in the body of the book look about the size of what I expect to see in footnotes or an index? But I'm sure that was the publisher's decision. It's one way to keep the size limited to 350 pages.
Bill, that was an interesting observation concerning the title. However, it is not the same exactly. Dave's site is called "The Titanic and the Mystery Ship." Senan's book title is bit shorter, its just "Titanic and the Mystery Ship." I would have thought, however, that he would had used "Titanic and The Mystery Ships," plural, but that is not the case. Senan has put forth various arguments on this site and it will be interesting to see if he expands on any of them or how he addresses some of the counter arguments that were presented here, assuming he does. Since I like to jump all over the place when I get something new to read, like skimming the conclusions, further reading and what the appendices contain, I noticed that in the section on further reading he references the two inquiries and the 1962 reappraisal report by the MAIB. The only books specific to Californian that were referenced for further reading were Harrison's A Titanic Myth, Padfield's Titanic and Californian, and Reade's A ship that Stood Still. He did not reference his earlier work. Also in that section for further reading included Beesley's Loss of the Titanic, Bisset's Tramps & Ladies, Gracie's Truth about Titanic, Groves' Middle Watch manuscript, Lightoller's Titanic and other Ships, and Rostron's Home from the Sea.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Inger Sheil
Member
Username: isheil
Post Number: 2947
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 5:41 am: |
|
Senan Molony is one of the most original (if not the most original) author/historians in the Titanic field writing today, so I do get a bit of a chuckle out of the idea that he'd feel the need to plagiarise from another writer...particularly an obvious title like that one.
I seem to vaguely recall Senan mentioning to me that the title change was a publisher's decision, but would have to check with him. Those familiar with the publishing industry would know how these decisions are often made. Personally I rather like A Ship Accused as a title, but that's just me.
I saw the proofs, and it looks fantastic - Senan's usual superlative work. I'm very pleased that it's now being brought to a wider audience with this mainstream publication.
Remarkable to think that so soon after the release of his powerfully moving Lusitania work that Senan has two more books published in such swift succession, although they've been in production for a while. The Phoenix Park Murders is due out in July. |
Michael Tennaro
Member
Username: tennaro
Post Number: 629
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Hello all,
I realize what a lightning rod Senan is, and I think I can speak as one of the few people to remain friendly with folks on both sides of the isle.
Bill, the title of a book is rarely the author's prerogative, rather it is the publisher who decides based on what will best sell the book. I agree with Sam though, that Titanic and the Mystery Ships would have been a better title, as this book goes into much more than just the Californian.
Sam, the size of the text is on the small side, but again that was a requirement of the incredible volume of verbage contained within. Paper being very expensive, publishers are required to limit the page count to as little as possible. As you have the book, you know that even at this small point size, the volume of content is massive, the book is quite thick.
There is some very impressive work being done on the Californian right now, that has not made it to a wide audience yet. I hope those works see the light of day soon as they argue that Californian was the mystery ship.
To balance the scales, it is thrilling to see Senan's book published by a mainstream publisher as his is still the very best book to argue the other point of view. If you want that side of the story, Senan's is a must have for your collection.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
Titanic Book Site.com
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Michael: I agree with what you said. I noticed the type size appears to be the same used in Eric Sauder's "RMS Lusitania," also published by Tempus. For me it is on the small size. In Mark Chirnside's "The Olympic-Class Ships," also a Tempus published work, the type size is bit larger and much easier to read in my opinion.
As far as the content is concerned I also feel that this book should be part one's collection on this particular subject. It is very well referenced throughout, and Senan is a very good writer who presents his points of view with clarity. This is not an endorsement of his conclusions by any means, but a statement regarding his ability to keep things clear for the average reader.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael Tennaro
Member
Username: tennaro
Post Number: 630
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Titanic and the Mystery Ship: A Review.
This book was first published privately by the author in 2002 with the title A Ship Accused. Tempus Publishing has just released a completely revised, reedited and somewhat expanded edition, with this new title. Like the original, this is a no holds barred critique of the "mystery ship" debate, with emphasis on exonerating the Californian as being the ringer.
Anyone who has read my review of A Ship Accused knows how highly I respected that work. If there was any flaw, it was that Molony's style of writing could be somewhat rambling and disjointed at times. This updated version, masterfully reedited and revised, corrects this flaw by composing the author's arguments into an even tighter point by point examination of his evidence. No real surprise as Molony is a professional journalist for Ireland's largest selling daily newspaper. It is a pleasure to watch his writing talents mature.
The images in the original work were also somewhat less than could be desired, not a flaw, but the necessity of an individual publishing his own work, and the resulting tradeoff of quality versus budget. This new edition, with the resources of a publisher behind it, corrects this issue as well. There are 32 plates produced with excellent clarity, as well as quality detailed illustrations within the text.
One complaint already mentioned elsewhere, is that the point size of the text is quite small, and this is a true statement. Us "elderly challenged" folks need cheater glasses to read this book with any ease. But again, this cannot be considered a flaw as the volume of text is just extraordinary. Considering the high cost of paper today, reducing the size of the type was the only way to bring the entire book to within a page limit that could afford to be published.
Molony takes the reader on a step by logical step guided tour of the evidence, explaining each detail in clear and concise language purposefully adopted for the casual reader. He is not afraid to take on opposing theories, giving evidence taken primarily from the original inquiries, the words of the men and women who were there, to show equally reasonable alternate explanations.
So has the ultimate mystery ship book been written? Depends on which side of this debate you fall on. Those who believe Californian was the mystery ship will remain unconvinced. Those who think otherwise will consider it to be a slam dunk, case closed. Without taking sides, all I intend to say is that this is the most comprehensive, detailed account of the mystery ship debate that has even been printed. It simply blows every previous book out of the water. That's not to say that an equally powerful book for the opposing point of view couldn't be written; but it hasn't been - yet.
In any event, whether pro or con, if you are interested in this convoluted subject, Titanic and the Mystery Ship is a must have book for your collection.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
Titanic Book Site.com
|
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 469
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 1:49 am: |
|
I might just buy this book even though I already have "A Ship Accused".
Sam Im well aware of your exchanges w/ Molony on the subject of the californian and Mystery Ships which I shall not comment on. As you know however when it comes to the Californian I'm what most Consider to be Lordite/Pro Californian.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 3:29 am: |
|
Hi Jesse. I tend to stay away from labels. I like to test hypotheses where possible. The entire affair is quite a fascinating subject that I feel is still ripe for analytical study. So far I feel there has been too much reliance placed on human observation and judgement only, and all the uncertainties that go along with it. Now I just need some time sit down and read through this particular work. I'll probably have more to say when I'm done with it.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 28
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 2:36 am: |
|
I've just heard from Tempus Publishing that the first printing of "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" has sold out. A second printing is now being produced.
Paul Slish |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1173
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 3:28 pm: |
|
I didn't think my single book purchase would have caused them to run out of stock.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Inger Sheil
Member
Username: isheil
Post Number: 2951
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:27 pm: |
|
Looks like it was you and a few thousand others, Sam! I understand this has set some sort of record for Tempus in terms of swift sales.
This is particularly remarkable in light of the fact that the Titanic market has supposedly been tapped out. When an author, like Senan, does this out of a passionate interest in the subject rather than money, and manages to combine superlative research and writing to a high degree, it's always pleasant to see them rewarded with good sales. And ultimately we all benefit, as it demonstrates that there's still life left in this niche interest area.
So congratulations to Senan and Tempus! |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 476
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 2:41 am: |
|
Now how much longer til they ship part of the 2nd batch to the States like they did w/ Eric's and Mark's book
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 30
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 2:37 am: |
|
The publisher shipped out the entire first printing. Some had to be transported over here to the USA. There are copies available through various sellers here in the USA now. Just type in the ISBN 0752437437 in any search engine. |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 478
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
ah yes. I found some Amazon and ordered a copy.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 12:44 am: |
|
Maybe it should be called the mysterious book.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 479
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:01 am: |
|
i suppose so. anyway for some reason his Name is spelled "moloney" on the US Amazon site, which explains why I had throuble finding it at first. if only i had thought of searching by ISBN
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1184
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:41 am: |
|
That is real bad for a site like that to spell an author's name incorrectly. You would think they would be much more careful than that. Not too many people know the ISBN.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 31
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:49 am: |
|
I signed on to Amazon in the USA today and received quite a nice surprise. On the home page on the upper right there was an announcement of "Titanic and the Mystery Ship". If you clicked on it you were directly taken to the listing for the book. That is some nice free advertizing for an issue dear to our hearts. No matter where anyone falls on the issue, the publicity is great. Amazon says they are down to only two copies. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 32
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:54 am: |
|
Amazon also has the number of pages as 256 when it should be 352. You just can't get good help anymore! Even on the Tempus website it is listed as 288 pages. Corrections should be made. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Received this from Amazom.com with regard to author's name spelling:
quote:Thanks for writing to Amazon.com to bring this to our attention.
We build our web site information from many sources, and we really appreciate knowing about any errors which find their way into it.
I'll see that this error is corrected as soon as possible.
Senan, you owe me one.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 3008
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Actually, Amazon spelled it right. It's Senan that always spells it wrong. :-) |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 481
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 11:11 pm: |
|
I just got this book in the mail today and flipped through it, besides having more pages than "A Ship Accused" and some new illustrations, the number of chapters was reduced too from 50 to 26. I highly recomend this book to anyone interested the Californian
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:10 am: |
|
Tempus corrected the number of pages in the book as listed on their website after I emailed them. The original 50 chapters are still there. Some of the 26 chapters in the new version have two or more subsections which were separate chapters in the original self published version. There is definitely new and revised information in this new Tempus published version. |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 484
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:32 pm: |
|
I basically agree w/ what Paul said as I have both books and look through them just to make some comparisons.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 153
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:01 pm: |
|
I wonder if those who have purchased the new book can tell me the following before I commit to buy the new edition
(1) In the previous edition one of the most irritating problems was that many charts were printed with South at the bottom, contrary to normal convention - is this still the case ?
(2) pg 94-95 of A Ship Accused - in a chapter labelled A Steamer Steaming - had two charts that attempted to demonstrate how the purported mystery ship managed to steam off to the South West without showing Californian her green light. However, the actual diagrams were presented in such a way as made it difficult to determine the author's point. Is it any clearer in the new edition ?
(3) On pg 93 - in a lengthy chapter headed " Appearances " of A Ship Accused Senan reprinted questions 7923 to 7930 . Several critics of the original work pointed out that Senan had left out question 7922 in which Stone remarked
" ..that I could not understand why if the rockets came from a steamer beyond this one, when the steamer altered her bearings the rockets should also alter their bearings"
- which was something of a crux in the matter and led to some rather heavy criticism of deliberate ommission. Is this still the case, or have matters been clarified ?
(4) On pg 43 of the original - a chapter headed Forcing A Red Light - Senan wrote
" But let us further examine the validity of the theory, for the sake of argument, because it has a fatal flaw...
" Because the Californian is to the north, the Titanic ( in bold from here ) no matter which way she herself is facing ( bold ends ) will always see the Californian's GREEN light"
as was pointed out at the time, the true matter of what lights Californian may, or may not, have shown to the Titanic would be entirely dependant on which way Californian, NOT Titanic, was heading.
Has this been addressed at all ?
(5) The degree of swing attributed to Californian differed across the original book - the chart on pg 126 - showing which way Californian faced at 4.20 am contradicting that on pg 45 ( the swingometer ) for example. Has this been clarified ?
These points troubled me greatly with the original, but it would be reassuring to know if they have, at least, been addressed.
Cheers
dave |
Marilyn Lena Penner
Member
Username: marylinusca
Post Number: 122
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:31 pm: |
|
(1) In the previous edition one of the most irritating problems was that many charts were printed with South at the bottom, contrary to normal convention - is this still the case ?
Dave,
I'm a landsperson. South is conventionally at the bottom of maps. Where is it usually found on a chart?
To anyone living in the Southern latitudes,
Is South at the bottom of your maps?
Marilyn P.
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 2827
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:13 pm: |
|
South is always at the bottom of the chart, regardless of the hemisphere. Senan disregards this convention. See pages 94, 123 of A Ship Accused.
The thing to watch for is that in charts of the northern hemisphere, latitude increases as you go up the chart. Where I live, it increases as you go down the chart. I have to watch out for this when working on matters Titanical.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 154
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:32 pm: |
|
Sorry - I got it derriere over tip, as Dave Gittins points out. What I meant to say was
(1) In the previous edition one of the most irritating problems was that many charts were printed with South at the TOP, contrary to normal convention - is this still the case ?
And not bottom, as I previously printed.
Many apologies
warmest regards
dave |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 155
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:33 pm: |
|
I was speaking out of my elbow |
Michael Tennaro
Member
Username: tennaro
Post Number: 633
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 12:01 am: |
|
Sounds painful, Dave. ;) Anyway, very few of the maps and charts from the original edition made it into the new version. I only saw a couple, and north was at the top of all of them.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
Titanic Book Site.com
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 34
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 12:51 am: |
|
The charts referred to by Dave Gittins on 94 and 123 of "A Ship Accused" are not in the new version "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" Since it it a long book, the publisher took many charts out of it to save space. There are still some charts in it though. They all have north at the top and south at the bottom. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 35
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 1:22 am: |
|
I now address Dave Moran's second question. This deals with the issue of the ship steaming off to the southwest that Stone observed from the Californian. The text in the new book is very close to "A Ship Accused" and the diagrams were dropped. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 36
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 1:52 am: |
|
I now deal with question 3 of Dave Moran. He questions the omission of question 7922. This deals with the rockets altering their bearing as the steamer alters its bearing according to Stone. The text is the same in the new version again quoting questions 7923 to 7930. However, I don't see any significant omission of material here. Questions 7928 through 7930 deal with the rockets altering their bearing with the ship according to Stone. Stone says essentially the same thing he said in answer to 7922. So what is omitted?
Also on page 284 in "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" an alternative explanation for the rockets allegedly changing their bearing with the departing ship is given. It is a little expanded over what is given on page 191 of "A Ship Accused." |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 37
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 2:07 am: |
|
Now on to question 4 of Dave Moran.
I believe what Senan was driving at on page 43 of "A Ship Accused" is as follows: If the Californian was heading NE she would show a green starboard light to a southern observer. No matter which way the Titanic is heading, an observer on the Titanic will always see a green starboard light on a NE heading Californian that lies to the north of the Titanic.
The key issue is how long did it take the Californian slowing swinging clockwise (NE to SE to S to SW to WSW) to swing to about S to show a red light to another ship bearing SSE? Of course as discussed previously, Stone testified the nearby ship changed its bearing to SW X 1/2 W, so it would take even longer for a clockwise swinging Californian to show her red light to the other ship.
Senan's point is that observers on the Titanic were observing a red port light on their mystery ship as early as 1:00 am, and the Californian wouldn't have swung enough to show a red light that early.
The discussion on the swing of the Californian is considerably expanded in "Titanic and the Mystery Ship." In my judgment it is clearer and more thorough. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 38
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 2:33 am: |
|
Now on to question 5 of Dave Moran. He states there is a contradiction in "A Ship Accused" between the "Swingometer" on page 45 and the chart on page 126. I fail to see any contradiction at all between these two charts. The swingometer shows the Californian heading ENE at 12:20 am. She slowly swings clockwise to SE to S to SW to WSW to WNW at 4:00 am. The chart on page 126 shows the Californian's heading at 4:00 am. This makes perfect sense for a ship that has been slowly swinging clockwise for the past four hours. I see no contradiction at all here.
In the new version "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" both charts are dropped, but the text is essentially the same at both of these places.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the whole analysis of the Californian's swing has been expanded and clarified in the new version.
I own both versions. "A Ship Accused" has many more little charts and pictures interspersed in it. "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" has a beautiful glossy picture section in it, and some of the pictures are new to this version.
The argument and analysis has been changed considerably in the new version. It is hard to put a percentage on it. I would estimate 80% the same and 20% revised. But it is hard to be precise. I'm glad I own both versions. Right now by shopping around you can get "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" at 30 to 35% off the $35 list price. But that is me. Another might be satisfied just to own one or the other. If you buy the new version and don't think it is different enough, then don't blame me! See if you can get your local library to buy it. Then you can read it and make up your own mind if you want to buy it. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:50 am: |
|
I don't propose to comment on the merits or otherwise of my book, but some of Dave Moran's points above ought to be addressed in all fairness.
1) South at the bottom of a map...
It is stated at the beginning of A Ship Accused:
quote:"Some maps in this book are printed with South at the top, instead of North. This is deliberate. Since Californian was to the North throughout, and saw some occurrences o the South, it is hoped to better convey her perspective."
Maybe I should have stuck with convention and simply suggested that readers turn the book upside down for this perspective.
This manoeuvre, restoring North to the top, is not hard in any case... There was no attempt to mislead, and the vexing illustrations have now been dropped.
2) >>how the purported mystery ship managed to steam off to the South West without showing Californian her green light.<<<
This is not hard to understand, although it proved so for the British court in 1912 and Stone had to demonstrate with models.
/r
Here's the ship in question, bows to the base as we look, showing her red light. All that is needed, not to show her green right as she turned, is for her to turn to starboard instead of to port.
Stone makes clear in 8083 and 8085 how the vessel came across the bows of the Californian, "shut in her red light and showed her stern light."
3) The charge of "deliberate omission" of Q. 7922 is untrue and unfair.
This question (7922) is clearly referred to, and Stone's answer given, on p. 191 of ASA. The actual question number is not given because it is dealt with in a discursive context. The question links rockets to the moving ship, and that is what is discussed.
Q. 7922 it is not on p. 93 because it does not belong in the section, which is dealing with the issue of a "flash" on deck.
In any case, both questions 7928 and 7929, which are a repetition of the exact point in 7922, ARE used here, on p. 93 of ASA. And in the latest work.
They are in the sequence of questions [not omitted!] even though they are out of context.
I am not going to start an examination of some aspect with something that is irrelevant.
In any case, two out of three of the Stone statements to the point of 7922 are printed here and the other one used later.
The claim of omission is therefore absolutely not valid.
The charge is very tenuously constructed, and from the "omitted" icontext set out above, can be seen to be so.
This admission by Stone is of course the weakest point of the Californian case, but to focus on it exclusively is to ignore 99pc of points in the other direction!
4) My version of ASA says, as does the new work -
quote:Because the Californian is heading north-east, the Titanic, no matter which way she herself is facing, will always see Californian’s green sidelight.
I think this is clear. It has been patiently established up to this point, from abundant evidence, that the Californian was facing northeast, presenting the green light on her starboard side to any vessel to the southward.
Clearly the Titanic, on the New York track, was to the southward of the Californian, which was heading to Boston.
Now let's take the Californian and put her within a few miles of the Titanic, or take the Titanic and put her within a few miles of Californian, just for the sake of argument.
Even if the Titanic ends up facing south, towards Antartica, such that the passengers have to rush to the stern to see the Californian, they will still only see the latter's green light. That is the only point being made there.
5) Dave, I think it was actually you who first alerted me to subtle difficulties and differences within the rate of swing of the Californian.
Yes, the charts on p. 45 and p. 126 of ASA semed to contradict each other, but they did not contradict the evidence!
The fact is that the swing appeared to slow and speed up at different times of the evening. I have dealt with this laboriously with Paul Slish, who has been extremely helpful in teasing out the meaning of the material.
The charts are gone (largely because the publisher didn't want this type of illustration, but there are very many previously unused pics now included that are different from ASA, you'll be glad to know).
The Californian's swing is not a simple thing, unfortunately... but these apparent inconsistencies in evidence are addressed, probed and arguments offered in explanation.
The bottom line is that an argument relying on Californian to swing speedily to present a red light to a non-swinging ship waiting patiently nearby is now shown to be even more absurd than ever. |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 156
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
Thnaks for all the replies, Paul and Senan - it must have taken you some time, and it was kind and very much appreciated. It's always gratifying when a writer reponds in person and I shall now happily pick up a copy of the book, and be yet further enlightened.
Never a bad thing for me.
warmest regards
dave |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 489
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 1:47 am: |
|
Senan
I just got your new book and I'm about halfway through, like some other people also own A Ship Accused. The major difference I have noticed is less charts in ASA and the reference to Bristow disapeared in the frankfurt section, well sort of. Im enjoying this book and it further convinces me that the Californian was not the Mystery ship.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 157
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Perhaps, Paul, to explain my query lest anyone think I was mischief making.
The chart on pg 45 indicates that over two hours Californian swung between NE and ENE, a swing of two compass points, or 11.25 degrees an hour, giving her a total swing of 23 degrees between these two hours.
However, the chart on pg 126 indicates that at 4.20 approx the Californian faces WNW. If she started facing NE then that means that over 6 hours she swung 270 degrees - a swing of 45 degrees an hour.
Now, if she was swinging that fast then by 12.20 she would be facing - ummm...wait, I can work this out...SE, yeah ? and on, through another 90 degrees until by 2.20 she would be facing SW
This was actually my biggest problem with the original book. However, as Senan has stated that this has been picked up on, I rest assured and only put the foregoing to put you in the picture regarding my original concerns.
However, overnight I've been mulling over something Senan said, when I think I inadvertently insulted him regarding previous critics of ASA who raised the point of question 7922. First, let me aplogise to Senan for repeating unfair criticism - I accept that the question is presented in the book, where Senan judges to be appropriate.
However, this brings me to my point - you replied that you had placed the question in the section where you deemed appropriate regarding the matters you wished to consider under your defined sections. My concern is that I wonder if that is historically viable.
Y'see, as I'm sure I don't really have to tell you, Stone doesn't break his answers into sections, they all form part of one long strand of questions and answers that make up his day in court. Is it therefore viable to cut some of the long exchanges of back-and-forth/ stimulus-and-repsonse testimony into chunks ? Is that us, any of us, a century later, editing what he - or anyone else - said ?
Now, I know that any writer has to make a choice as to how to approach the primary evidence, and I accept that Senan, as with Lesley Reade, Leslie Harrison, Walter Lord et al, has made his choices - and from the positive feedback he has received here, those were judicious choices if he were presenting a case for the defence.
Nevertheless, should we, as objective historians, not be taking a more holistic view ? |
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 117
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Mystery ship or no, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Titanic was seen firing rockets that night by crew of the Californian and did not respond in any way that could have saved anyone on or from, the doomed ship.
Regardless of how many extra may or may not have been saved had the Californian gone to the rescue, it did not go and the chance of possible life for some, was gone forever. |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 490
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 6:08 pm: |
|
John
The californian was 19-26 Miles from the Titanic, it would therefore be impossible to see the Titanic from that distance. Lord, Gibson and Stone all agreed that ship under observation was a tramp steamer.
While Gill says a passanger steamer I find his testimony to be unreliable and filled w/ contradictions.
and to a Lesser extent that would also accurately describe my position on Groves
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 158
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 6:17 pm: |
|
Jesse - how do you arrive at those figures ?
warmest regards
dave |
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 118
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 6:26 pm: |
|
"The californian was 19-26 Miles from the Titanic, it would therefore be impossible to see the Titanic from that distance. Lord, Gibson and Stone all agreed that ship under observation was a tramp steamer."
Then why did some crew members recall seeing rockets? or was another ship firing them that night? No. I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that certain crew members on the Californian saw rockets, and what an amazing coincidence that they happened to be coming from the direction of a visible ship.
As for contradictions, well that night is full of them.
Plus, why did the Californian not investigate the rockets, no matter what ship fired them?
Regards. |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 159
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Wait, guys.. maybe we don't want to rehearse all the pro's and con's here. There are threads to argue about how close- or far away - Titanic and Californian are...
Begin not this flame war must we...to the Dark Side this will lead
warmest regards
Yodave |
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 119
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Hi Yodave,
flame war not intended. Dark side shunned will be. May the force be with you.
From, knowing my luck, a Wookie. |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 491
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 10:49 pm: |
|
John & Dave
These figures are arrived at from Testimony of various Californian and Titanic witness at the British Inquiry and Senate Investigation. Also to be found useful are:
Bristow, Titanic: Sinking The Myths
Padfield, The Titanic and Californian
Carrothers, Lord of The Californian
Reade, The Ship that stood Still
Harrison, A Titanic Myth
Groves, The Middle Watch
it also worth noting that Titanic's Wreck lies 22 Miles from Californian's Stop Position. 19-26 simply said to allow room for any errors.
it should also be noted that Stone thought the rockets he was watching came from well beyond the ship he was watching.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 160
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Yup - all points debated over at the Ships That May Have Stood Still thread. I see where you're coming from...but are you familiar with the work of George Behe ? |
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 120
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:45 am: |
|
Hiya Jesse,
I understand what you're saying. But I guess like nearly everything else connected with Titanic, is all down to personal interpretation.
I am still convinced that rockets were seen by Californian crew members and, regardless of how far away they might have been, they were not investigated.
Whether there was a 'mystery' ship or not makes no odds.
Regards. |
