| Author |
Message |
    
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 492
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 2:15 am: | 
|
John & Dave
Glad to see you understand where I'm Coming from. Yes I am well aware of George Behe's Site and the pages on it about the Californian and Leslie Harrison, I also visit Dave Billnitzer's often as it has some sources on it which are availabe nowhere else, and also Dave Gittins website, I'm also well aware of the Mystery ship threads and have participated in them.
The only thing I didn't see in Molony's new book which I was hoping might be there is the Article: Lifeboats Don't Lie.
As for the book being selective. While I was reading the parts regarding Groves and his opinion of the ships size under observation, I first thought this was selective as my memory fooled me into thinking Groves had said or made an indication about the ships size. Under further examination in my PRO edition of the British Inquiry I found that was mistakened, and no indication of the ships size was to be found.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10516
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 5:37 am: |
|
>>The californian was 19-26 Miles from the Titanic, it would therefore be impossible to see the Titanic from that distance.<<
That's not neseccerily accurate, Jesse. Regarding the distance of seperation, this is anything but a certain sure irrefutable fact. Navigation was not quite as precise in 1912 as it is today, and out on the open ocean, it didn't really need to be. Irrespective of that, there is the certain sure fact that;
a) The Titanic fired distress rockets.
b) The Californian saw rockets.
c) Nobody else was firing rockets.
No matter how anyone spins it, this just never goes away, and it can't be talked away.
Mind you, I'm not hostile to the proposition that there was an interloper in between the two vessels, but even if it could be proven beyond even the remotest possibility of any doubt that there was, it doesn't do anything for the Californian. The whole of the U.S Sixth Fleet could have been time warped there and back for all I know, but the issue of rockets being fired by the Titanic and rockets being seen and unresponded to by the Californian remains.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 161
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:23 am: |
|
I must admit that of all the writers that have addressed this thorny issue, Senan makes the best argument yet put forward for the ship seen from the Titanic possibly not being the Californian. I would give him the benefit of the doubt on that issue.
However, as regards what was seen from the Californian, there can be no doubt that she saw Titanic's rockets. The logic is inescapable, as Michael demonstrates above.
Seeing and watching, to me, are two different things - seeing is passive, watching involves a degree of study and attention.Now, Senan raises the possibility, I believe, that whilst Stone and Gibson saw Titanic's rockets, they were watching another ship altogether, which distracted them from what was going on beyond.
To be honest, I don't find this convincing - I respect the work Senan puts in to this contention but I think he's attempting to square an impossible triangle. He gets close - closer than anyone else has but it relies too much on the testimony of one man - Herbert Stone - who stumbles in several places in the British Inquiry whilst trying to defend himself. He couldn't quite explain to the satisfaction of the Inquiry the supposed movements of his mystery ship, and it remains insolvable to this day. Senan takes up the case, presents it well but, to me, still can't do it.
Then there are the actions on the bridge of the Californian after she starts moving. We don't know what was said between all the officers, we will never know, but surely at some point the question must have arisen as to whether the ship that Stone and Gibson watched during the night was Titanic. Some-one must have put forward the proposition that she was, some-one else the proposition that she wasn't - and the latter conclusion carried the day in the heart and mind of Stanley Lord, for he clung to it for the rest of his life. Same with Stone. Gibson, I think, wasn't sure, Groves that it was Titanic. Stewart -who knows ?
But there are certain physical and kinetic fixtures about the whole event - the position the Titanic sank in, the movements of Californian after she started moving, how long she steamed towards the Carpathia - that convince me that though she couldn't have been as close a 6 miles, nor could she have been as far away as 19 to 26. The figures for speed and time of transit are inescapable.
So, to sum up, I think Senan has a good, convincing argument for another ship in proximity to Titanic, but the Titanic was in visual range of the Californian. Both Leslie Reade and Senan can be right in this case.
Y'know...I've often wondered, if Stanley Lord had passed away before he saw " A Night To Remember " whether we'd be debating this at all.
warmest regards
dave |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1596
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:19 pm: |
|
I don't think Stanley Lord ever saw "A Night To Remember" btw.
Cheers
Paul |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 162
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Oh, I thought he had, and it was this that prompted him to complain to the union, which then brought him to Leslie Harrison's attention ? |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 163
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Dr Paul Lee, I would mention, has an excellent website ( I didn't know myself that he was a fellow Dr Who fan - and a hunter of missing episodes to boot !!! ) which has much useful information. He's probably too shy to mention it. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Thanks Dave, the cheque/check is in the post!  |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 164
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Make it out to
Dave Moran,
Torchwood Institute,
Bad Wolf Lane,
London
( There - that'll give RTD the heebie jeebies if he ever comes on here )
warmest regards
dave |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1598
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Don't you mean Canary Wharf tower ;) |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 165
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 3:02 pm: |
|
touche, Doctor. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10518
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
>>I don't think Stanley Lord ever saw "A Night To Remember" btw. <<
No, but while he nver saw the movie, he was aware of the book and it's contents, and that's what started everything that followed. Absent that much, we might still be having this discussion anyway, but probably without all the attending heat. Whatever you think of the Californian, Captain Lord and the blokes who served under him, the fact of the matter is that the whole thing is a distraction, and probably Heaven sent as far as the Mersey Wreck Commission was concerned. It gave them somebody to blame. A handy distraction from some very real problems with accepted navigation practice that was at the very core of why Titanic came to a bad end, and which Captain Lord had nothing to do with.
Captain Lord may or may not have been guilty of some sort of negligence. (Kick it around as you wish, I don't care an awful lot about it anymore.) but the hard reality is that even if they had acted instantly upon seeing the first rocket, it's unlikely in the extreme that they could have made that much of a difference.
It's really a matter of logistics. The Californian had only a few boats and not a lot of crew, and the Titanic's were all spoken for. To effect a transfer of all passengers and crew still trapped on the liner would have been an evolution that would have taken several hours. If the ships were seperated by 10 to 12 miles (I'm with Dave Gittins on this one) then they would have arrived just in time to watch the Titanic sink and hopefully fish some extra swimmers out of the water before they froze to death,
A 20 mile seperation doesn't even bear discussion.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 3:54 pm: |
|
I think that what happened was that S.Lord saw serialised extracts of ANTR in his local paper. He didn't seem to pay them much attention, and the passages that he saw made no reference to the Californian. Its only with the press coverage of the film that he realised that something was amiss.
I personally think that the Titanic-Californian distance was of the order of 15 miles, but I also agree with Dave Gittins. Walter Lord was convinced that the ships were less than 10 miles apart and told the MAIB appraisers this in the early 1990s. But this doesn't make sense: at less than 10 miles, Boxhall's green flares would have been seen. The distance had to have been 10+ miles. Unless someone wants to suggest that the intervening ice eclisped the flares on the horizon (!) |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 166
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Thanks very muchly for clarifying the facts, chaps.
The other question I have pondered much lately, and I would be interested in anyone's views on this is - why IS this one such a heated topic ?
warmest regards
dave |
John Clifford
Member
Username: hjca
Post Number: 944
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Stanley Lord died in April of 1962, four years after the movie version of "A Night To Remember" came out.
Leslie Harrison said that he would do everything possible to clear his name.
The early 1990s hearing was the last one on the subject, with the conclusions being a "mixed bag", as the apparent image of negligence for not failing to at least try to get under way, especially as the Titanic's rockets were the only ones identified.
John Clifford
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10521
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 5:10 pm: |
|
>>...why IS this one such a heated topic ?<<
I don't know. A natural inclination to root for the underdog perhaps? Justified or not? Speaking only for myself, the Californian mess is not really one of my hot buttons. My own opinion is that for some reason, the people on watch simply misread the tea leaves and had their "OH ****!!!!!" moment in the morning once they got the news on the wireless, after which everything went to hell in a handbasket.
I also think that guilty or not, a very real injustice was done to Captain Lord in that the accusations against him were never tested before a jury. I do think that a man has a right to a fair trial and this just never happened.
The thing is that as embarrassing as the whole Titanic affair was, the last thing the powers-that-be wanted was another exposition of questionable seamanship on the part of British mariners, especially when a decent lawyer could have swung an aquittal. It's not as if all the witnesses against Captain Lord were all that reliable and a good advocate would have exploited that mercilessly. (Can you imagine the fun that even a barely competant attorney would have had raking Ernest Gill over the coals? Never mind Stone and Gibson!)
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 121
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 5:47 pm: |
|
"I also think that guilty or not, a very real injustice was done to Captain Lord in that the accusations against him were never tested before a jury. I do think that a man has a right to a fair trial and this just never happened."
Yes, I'm with you on that one. No matter if did wrong or right, he still should be treated fairly.
As an aside, and one which is purely my own unproven hunch, I think that captain Lord was kept in the dark about rockets etc until he awoke in the morning. But being the person in charge he knew he'd take the rap and tried to make the best out of the situation for him and his crew.
As I say, just a hunch based on what I have read so far and not proven or indeed, provable ;-)
Regards. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1210
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 6:07 pm: |
|
"being the person in charge he knew he'd take the rap and tried to make the best out of the situation for him and his crew."
That is true, John. However, he sure didn't help his case, when he lied to the newspapers when he docked in Boston. He told the papers nothing had been seen that night, and he knew damn well it had. By that point, he had two documents from his crewmen detailing what they had seen.
Bill
|
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 123
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Very true Bill. I get the impression that the Californian crew never really got their story straight. Mainly, I feel, because the situation instilled panic in them all and who can wonder at that? |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 493
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Michael
I have never said that Stone and Gibson didn't see Titanic's Rockets. Simply that from the descriptions of the rockets from them that it is my opinion that the rockets did not come from the ship under observation, but a Titanic at a further distance.
Another good Point is that if the Californian was as close to Titanic as some people would have us believe, than why didn't Benjamin Kirk see the Carpathia Immediately as he should've in such a situation.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 129
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Jesse, for a second I misread your post and thought you had asked why Captain Kirk didn't see the Carpathia immediately, haha! I was about to say no wonder the observers were so confused that night, the Enterprise was between the Californian and Titanic... |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 494
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Nope. not the Enterprise. Though that would be quite a sight for them.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 167
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Ok, so it would seem that the view is that Captain Lord was done an injustice.
Now three things strike me about this
(1)Had Lord been put on trial at the time, I consider it unlikely he would have been able to get a fair trial. The press would have pilloried him, people would have known his name - and Lord would have joined the likes of Oscar Slater in jail for a nebulous crime, and his real offence being that " his face didn't fit ". I know Michael thinks a good advocate would have cleared him- that is always supposing he would have got a good advocate in the first place to take his case. My own opinion - I think he would have been even more of a scapegoat than he was
(2) Was he actually a scapegoat ? He didn't lose his job, his position with the line, or his master's certificate - so whilst he might have had whispers behind his back and rough handling from Lord Mersy, did he really suffer professionally ?
( 3) Does history judge Captain Lord correctly ? Was he responsible for the slackness on board his ship ?
And finally, are we yet ready to discuss this matter objectively, as historians, or as the centenary approaches are we still locked into an advocate for the defence versus an advocate for the prosecution ? |
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 2830
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:29 pm: |
|
I don't intend to get too involved in this discussion. For one thing, I've been having technical glitches of various kinds (Thanks, Telstra!). For my full account of the Californian affair, see my e-book. I think you'll find it impartial and my summary might surprise some.
A few odd points. Lord did lose his job at the Leyland Line. He was forced to resign for appearance's sake. He was out of work until the end of January 1913, by which time he was very short of money.
Lord actually benefited from the informal nature of Mersey's court. Lord and others happily gave evidence that they would not have given in a trial. Sir Rufus Isaacs didn't take a key step. He could have told Mersey that he suspected Lord had committed an offence and therefore no evidence should be heard on 'the Californian affair'. It was peripheral to the story anyway. Then Lord could have been charged and tried in a magistrates court. Lord himself could have refused to answer in Mersey's court but he did not. Mersey had only the powers of a court of summary jurisdiction.
After the inquiry, the Board of Trade considered prosecuting Lord, but the Board's solicitor, Sir Robert Ellis Cunliffe, advised against doing so, largely because Lord had incriminated himself in Mersey's court. A fair trial was unlikely. Reading between the lines, I sense that Sir Robert had some sympathy for Lord and was happy to see the matter dropped.
Had Lord been charged, there would have been nothing 'nebulous' about it. He would have been charged under the Maritime Conventions Act 1911, which enforced rules internationally agreed on, such as the requirement to render assistance to ships in distress. Stone and Lord could both have been charged. In my view, Stone at least would have lost his ticket.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 168
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:41 pm: |
|
How do we get your e-book, Dave ?
( I have never met this man before in my life. I am not a plant. )
warmest regards
anonymous man from the crowd |
Inger Sheil
Member
Username: isheil
Post Number: 2987
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 12:20 am: |
|
quote:And finally, are we yet ready to discuss this matter objectively, as historians, or as the centenary approaches are we still locked into an advocate for the defence versus an advocate for the prosecution?
As Chou En-lai is supposed to have responded when asked by a reporter for his assessment of the impact of the French Revolution on China and the rest of the world - 'It's too early to tell.'
Book sales are doing brilliantly. I'm not sure how Senan keeps up with it all, given that the Phoenix Park book is released this week. I'll have to see about getting some copies of the Cal book into Oz. No wonder he hasn't had time to run any marathons lately. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1216
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 2:35 am: |
|
How can something which, by its very nature, is not objective be discussed objectively? Even the testimony presented was not devoid of personal feelings and interpretation as well as prejudices in many situations. Senan's stated objective in writing this book was to examine the totality of evidence in answering the question, was the mystery ship seen by those on the Titanic the Californian? To that end I can say, from what I've read so far, is that he has certainly attempted to address most if not all related issues. But the reader is lead down a path based on conclusions that the author has made from the evidence presented. I feel the that the reader is not left to form independent conclusions, as is also the case with every other book written on this particular subject.
Although it is slightly repetitive in a few places, I do recommend it for those seriously interested in this particular subject. It is certainly well researched and referenced.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 39
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 3:11 am: |
|
Wow, this thread sure burst into activity in the last few days!
Anyway, getting back to Dave Moran's earlier question about the rate of swing. I think I understand better what you were driving at. You are stating there is a possible contradiction between the "swingometer" (you have to love the terms the Californian debate has engendered) rate depicted on page 45 vs the WNW heading of the Californian on page 126.
The conclusion I have come to after carefully studying the testimony is that the rate of swing was not uniform as the Californian swung from NE to WNW. From hydrodynamic principles that I have read, a ship freely floating in a current will eventually swing to a position broadside to that current. In other words the ship will end up beam on to the current. Thus if the Labrador current was about SW as Captain Knapp testified in the USA we would expect the Californian to end up roughly on a NW to SE line. Now why it didn't stop at a heading of SE or SSE as opposed to continuing to swing to a heading of WNW or perhaps eventually NW,I'm not completely sure about. There has to be a hydrodynamic reason why she ended up with the bows to WNW as opposed to SSE.
What I expect happened is the rate of swing (that is the number of points rotated per hour) increased as the Californian moved toward equilibrium. That is why we see 16 points of swing (ENE to WSW) from 12:10 am to 1:50 am. As the Californian approached its equilibrium point in the current of WNW the rate of swing slowed down.
So to summarize, I don't think hydrodynamic principles would lead us to expect a uniform rate of swing, but a slow rate then increasing to a faster rate, then slowing down again. Think of a pendulum going back and forth with a shorter and shorter swing until it stops. It is swinging fastest in the middle of its stroke.
Now we have other evidence that the Californian was indeed pointing about WNW at 4.00 am. Chief Officer Stewart came on duty at 4.00 am and observed a steamer about on the bearing where Stone said he saw the last rockets (likely the Carpathia's). Stone said it was a little abaft the port beam and about south in his written statement.
Well it got light soon after Stewart went on duty and even us landlubbers know that the sun rises in the east. So Stewart wouldn't have even had to look at the compass to roughly ascertain the Californian's heading. How does Stewart testify that the other steamer bears? He repeatedly says to the southward, which would be on the port beam of a roughly westward heading Californian. He confirms Stone's statement that the Californian was heading roughly to the westward. The port beam would be south if the Californian was heading west.
Captain Lord also confirms this by stating the other steamer bore to the SW. Perhaps Lord was giving the compass bearing and Stewart the true. The Californian's compass error (Variation plus Deviation) was about 29 or 30 degrees west.
Also we have no indication that the Californian had to make any big turn before it began to slowly go through the icefield at 5.15 am. It was already heading to the westward. The Californian had actually begun to move slowly forward through the ice field when Stewart really pressed Captain Lord to check out the ship to the southward.
I would suggest those interested should read through "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" and then we can discuss questions about it over on a thread in the "Ships That May Have Stood Still" section. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10526
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 7:11 am: |
|
>>I have never said that Stone and Gibson didn't see Titanic's Rockets. Simply that from the descriptions of the rockets from them that it is my opinion that the rockets did not come from the ship under observation, but a Titanic at a further distance.<<
Jesse, what you said was "The californian was 19-26 Miles from the Titanic, it would therefore be impossible to see the Titanic from that distance"
This presumes that the Titanic was in fact 19-26 miles away from the Titanic and it can be demonstrated with the available evidence that this is a questionable proposition at best.
>>Another good Point is that if the Californian was as close to Titanic as some people would have us believe, than why didn't Benjamin Kirk see the Carpathia Immediately as he should've in such a situation.<<
Is it? The Carpathia was well beyond anybody's visual range when the Titanic was sinking. The Carpathia didn't arrive on the scene until around four in the morning. Perhaps you should rephrase that one.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 169
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 10:11 am: |
|
Well, Samuel, as to arriving at an onbjective view of a subjective matter, there is the three " C" s technique proselytized by the Open University
1. Close Reading - examining the texts ( in this case the testimonies at the Inquiry ) for both constancies and contradictions.
2. Context - keeping everything in context. In this case I would suggest that Stone, Lord, Gibson et al have two agendas
First, in so far as they are capable, and under oath, to tell the truth
Second, notwithstanding the above, their very human, and understandable, desire not to implicate themselves deeper into trouble than they need to. The most obvious example is Stone's testimony, but there are others.
3. Conceptualisation - the determining of abstracts such as " the truth, and nothing but the truth ". The Inquiry tries to do it at the time, and the witnesses try to do it in their own minds.
Now, almost a hundred years on, we have to do approach the work as objectively as possible, without our own personal agendas. The people are long dead - any characterisation, such as my own above, of Lord and Stone, Smith or Ismay, Napoleon or Caesar, are artificial constructs, for a start. We should thus try to avoid indulging in the sort of psychological examinations that blighted history in the 1970's and 80's and which we are not qualified to do. The temptation to do so is difficult to resist, my first draft of this posts had my own opinions about Lord and Stone, but I excised it because I realised I was doing the very thing I went on to criticise.
If we do do it, we must either present evidence to back up our conclusions, or make it clear that it is our own opinion - to do otherwise is to assume a position of "Authority on..." which is a lable I have never liked being applied to any writer. History is too pliable, too nebulous, for anyone to be a sole " Authority "
And we must not in any circumstances take evidence out of its context. A writer of history owes that duty of care to his or her readers, lest he or she lead them into error. Start taking excerpts out of context and both writer and reader start down a long, thorny path at the end of which sit such unsatisfactory figures as David Irving and his chums.
Primary evidence is king - we have to be lead by it, we cannot cut and paste it to suit our agendas, I suggest.
And so to Paul Slish - thanks very much for your well considered reply. That's the sort of thing I am driving at - consideration of the evidence but careful labelling of where the writer is advancing his own theories/opinions/abstractions. I think it has to be done, otherwise all we'll ever do is shout at one another.
Warmest regards
dave |
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 2832
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 11:24 am: |
|
Dave Moran, you get my e-book by going to http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
Follow the links to see extracts and purchasing details.
I would add to your list of things to consider the advice to consider what was physically possible. That's how I unravelled the Rappahannock story, using basic facts including a sailing date and the ship's performance.
Paul Slish, your nautical text omitted a key point. It only deals with the effect of current. If there is even a feeble wind, a ship will turn under its influence. A ship presents a very large area to the wind.
Captain Lord himself said that Californian's bow was blown round. There's no particular reason to think her turn was constant. The angle she presented to the wind changed and the strength and direction of the wind may have varied. Sam Halpern has suggested that the turn may even have been reversed for a time and this is not impossible.
When considering how far Californian had to turn before her red light could be seen from Titanic, it depends on the relative bearings of the two ships. If Californian was dead north of Titanic she must turn further than she would need to if she was NW of Titanic. Play round with some models. (Not THAT kind, you devil!)
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Username: oceanic3
Post Number: 179
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Hi Jesse
Do you believe Gibson's statement, that he saw the detonating flash and streak of a rocket into the sky, to be correct? If you do, this places an upper limit of about 15-16 miles on the separation between Californian and Titanic in the absence of abnormal refraction.
Cheers
Paul |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 170
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Dave Gittins,
Thanks - I shall purchase it when I next get paid, it sounds good.
warmest regards
dave |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1602
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Dave,
I thoroughly recommend Dave Gittin's ebook. Excellent material throughout (and a good dose of Aussie humour too!)
By the way, Paul, the upper limit on the distance is determined by the height that the rocket reaches and the height of the observer above the waterline. I think this would be
1.16*sqrt(45) + 1.16*sqrt(800)
= roughly 40 nautical miles |
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 2836
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
The distance at which rockets or socket signals could be seen was limited more by their brightness than by geometry. Modern parachute flares are guaranteed to be seen at 22 miles. I suspect sockets signals were not much inferior, if at all.
Captain Lord mentioned that he thought rockets would be seen at 19 miles.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 495
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Michael
Lets Review what Benjamin Kirk Said
From Nauitical Magazine, November 1969/ Appendix G in The Ship That Still by Leslie Reade
"I came on watch at four in the morning. There were no icebergs in sight. Later the Chief Officer asked me to go up in a coal basket, shackled to a mainmast stay and hoisted by a gantline, to look for survivors or wreckage or boats from the Titanic. I could see nothing. I remember very plainly first seeing the Mount Temple on the port bow and then the Carpathia."
Statement Made to Leslie Harrison in 1968/ Pg 232 in A Titanic Myth by Leslie Harrison reads exactly the same as the above regarding this subject.
What Becomes Clear is:
Benjamin Kirk was hoisted up in Mast in the Coal basket sometime after 4AM, and after the Carpathia Reached Titanic's Lifeboats and therefore should have been able to see Carpathia Immediately or atleast make out a ship Immediately if this position was 10-12 Miles away or less. He saw nothing Immediately.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10531
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 4:45 pm: |
|
>>He saw nothing Immediately.<<
Jesse, you might want to review it yourself for context. He was speaking to looking for the Titanic. Obviously, he wouldn't see her as Titanic was no longer there to be seen. He did explicitly mention seeing the Mount Temple first and then Carpathia but does not speak to the time he observed either vessel.
Hardly compelling, and 57 years after the fact, not alltogether useful either.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10532
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 4:47 pm: |
|
I might add that if if Ben Kirk saw no icebergs, he must have been blind as a bat since absolutely everybody else not only mentioned seeing icebergs, the Californian had been stopped by same for the night, and she had to work her way through the icefield to get to the other side where the Mount Temple had stopped short.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 5:34 pm: |
|
We must also remember that what Kirk said is coming from Lord's greatest apologist, Leslie Harrison. I wonder if this is a fair reproduction of Kirk's quote. Harrison also said that Kirk refused to have his voice tape recorded. Maybe Kirk did, but Harrison wanted to have more control over what was reported?
Kirk also fails reporting seeing the Almerian...possibly because she wasn't there?! |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 130
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Didn't Leslie Harrison, in an attempt to bolster Kirk's story, try to say that a signal flag visible on the foremast of the Californian in a photograph taken from the Carpathia was really the coal bucket in question, when in fact, it is clearly a flag? I agree that Harrison was not a historian, he was pretty much playing the role of defense lawyer for Lord, plus when he met the man, he liked him, and became very personally attached to the subject matter. He was not an objective evaluator, and most of the books on this subject on both sides of the aisle are hardly objective.
Paul W., in addition to Gibson's statement about seeing the flash of the detonator on the deck (a very important fact which you bring up), in this discussion, let us not forget that Stone himself, while speculating that the rockets were coming from beyond the ship on the horizon, couldn't get past the fact that the rockets were changing bearing as the ship changed bearing. (7922)
Also, Stone himself in question 7923-7929 says that he was "sure" that at least one of the rockets came from the ship on the horizon, and goes on to indicate that he was fairly certain the rockets were coming from the vessel on the horizon because of this, and the altering of the bearings of the rockets with the bearing of the ship.
Yes, Stone does speculate that they might have been coming from beyond the vessel, but he also says that in at least one case, he thought it came from the vessel and during his questioning, it is clear that he was wavering on this himself. His statements have often been presented as if he was definitively claiming that the rockets came from beyond the vessel, when in fact, he was unsure of this himself.
What we can say is that if even one rocket came from the vessel showing its lights on the horizon (as both Gibson thought, and in the case of possibly one rocket, Stone), then it was in fact Titanic. Witnesses on the Titanic would have seen another vessel fire one rocket. I have never heard anyone on either side of this issue claim this anyway.
Distilled down, all of this is a moot point anyway, the issue of the rockets is one that nobody, including Harrison himself has ever been able to escape. They were the Titanic's, whether one feels the evidence indicates that the vessel on the horizon was the Titanic or not, and this is the crux of the matter.
I have made known my opinion that Lord has been unfairly blamed for the loss of life, but that doesn't mean that I have concluded that no mistakes were made by either himself or the crew. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1217
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 9:21 pm: |
|
Objectivity. Let's try.
When someone tries to evaluate the presented evidence there are a few things that can be shown to be physically impossible. One of them concerns the changing compass bearings that Stone reported on.
If the rockets came from the Titanic, and if they came from behind the ship being observed, then as the ship changed her bearings and was perceived to be steaming off to the SW (through the icefield) then the rockets that were seen could not possibly follow that steamer. Stone said the steamer started to change bearings from the time he saw the 2nd rocket onward. If that were true then by time Gibson came back on deck and saw that 6th rocket go up he could not possibly say it appeared to have come off the deck of the ship. Using Senan's own argument, which is correct, the Titanic and the Californian were both stopped during the time the rockets were seen. The correct compass bearing to Titanic's rockets could not change. Furthermore, when the steamer was first observed by Stone and Gibson, about 12:15 AM, it was to the SSE magnetic (SE true) of the Californian. This is also confirmed directly by Groves and indirectly by Lord. That means that the rockets came from the SE true, and the observed steamer, no matter what ship it was, had to remain on that bearing line at least until all 8 rockets that were counted had gone up. Yet Stone said the steamer began to move from the time of the 2nd rocket. This is impossible if those rockets came from the Titanic beyond the steamer. And, furthermore, with the stationary Titanic bearing SE true from the stationary Californian, then at the time the Titanic foundered, the Californian had to be on a line that ran from SE true to NW true from the Titanic, whether the two ships were in direct visual range of each other or not. These are all basic physical facts. Once you go to a plotting chart and locate the position of the wreck site, which we know for certain these days, we see that there is no point on that line that is anywhere close to the location that Capt. Lord thought he stopped at. The closest point on that line being 10 miles away to the SW from Lord's reported stopping point.
So, either the rockets seen were not those of the Titanic,
or Stone took some very bad observations,
or Stone converted relative bearings to compass bearings without checking the compass,
or the bearing to the ship did not change until after the 8th rocket was seen implying he lied about when he first saw the steamer changing bearings,
or Stone made up the story about the compass headings for reasons that are subject to speculation.
Feel free to add to the list.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 171
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 10:14 pm: |
|
I can only advance the one, Sam
Stone is testifying in court and is tied up in knots between
(1) What he saw
(2) What he would like to think he saw
(3) What he would like the court to think he saw
Simultaneously he is going through the events of that night in a logical manner, due to the manner of advocate questioning, for the first time since that night.
My own belief is that at some point he begins to realise what he was really seeing - the Titanic foundering - and this is where he becomes unsure, as Tad put it.
It's a hell of a psychological trauma for any man to deal with, but particularly as unimaginative a man as Herbert Stone. ( a man who dies without having made any provision for his family at all is a bear of very little ... imagination ) and I think instead of lying, he just has no real idea of what to say and starts drivelling.
So I think your last two suggestions are correct but he isn't being malicious - he's having a mental collapse.
Warmest regards
dave |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 40
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 2:18 am: |
|
To Dave Gittins. My point was to demonstrate according to hydrodynamic principles based on the current alone, we shouldn't expect the Californian to swing clockwise at a constant rate. Yes, wind could have some effect. There wasn't much that night. Lord described it as a "flat calm" (US 728). Stone described it as "light airs and calms" (private statement). So it is impossible to know how much effect the wind had on the swing of the Californian. But we do know how a drifting ship behaves in a current based upon known hydrodynamic principles. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 41
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 3:00 am: |
|
To Sam Halpern.
1. We don't know for certain that Stone gave his bearing by compass. He said "SSE by the standard compass." He could have read the compass at 12:10 am and then mentally converted it to true. It is not impossible. I think it is likely he gave his bearing by compass and did not convert it, but the possibility exists I and you could be wrong. If that is the case, that makes a huge change in your plotted lines.
2. So let's go down the path that the bearing was about SSE by compass and thus about SE true. Let's see where it leads us.
3. You drew your hypothetical line between the Californian and the Titanic based upon the wreck site. That is not correct. Stone took his bearing at 12:10 am, so you should backtrack the Titanic's position to where it was estimated to be at 12:10 am Californian time. A couple of miles will change your plot line quite a bit when extrapolated out to 42 N latitude. The 1992 reappraisal estimated the collision position at 41 47 N, 49 55 W. Dave Gittins also uses this position in his website. I'm inclined to use 41 46 N as I think Captain de Coverly estimated the current a little too fast. However this one minute of latitude is not real significant.
4. Captain Knapp the US Navy hydrographer testified in the US that the Labrador current generally flows southwest as I mentioned in a post yesterday. Captain de Coverly in the 1992 reappraisal concurs with Captain Knapp.
5. The Californian also drifted for about an hour and a half after she stopped before the Titanic struck, and thus she would have drifted about a minute west and a minute south by the time the Titanic struck. So that has an effect on the true bearing between the ships after the Californian stopped steaming. I don't agree with you that the Californian was 12 minutes behind the Titanic's time, but that is another whole discussion.
Now being very familiar with Senan Molony's book and very impressed with it, I would encourage all interested parties to read it. But from here on out, I differ from Senan, so this is entirely my reasoning and I take full responsibility for it. As best I can tell, Senan takes the position that the nearby ship bore SSE true as did the Titanic hull down over the horizon.
I had wanted to write up the following as a full fledged paper, which I haven't had time to do as of now. But I will give a summary of my analysis of the distance between the Titanic and the Californian when the former struck. Their relative positions should have stayed pretty much the same until the Titanic sank, as both ships were drifting in the Labrador current. That is the opinion of the 1992 reappraisal. I will also deal with Stone's "rockets altering their bearings." Stone in my opinion contradicts himself in his testimony. Having carefully studied it and Gibson's testimony as well as other testimony from the Inquiries, I have put together my hypothesis of what the distances and bearings were and an explanation of Stone's alleged "rockets altering their bearings with the steamer altering her bearings." I also examined contemporary newspaper accounts, but one has to make judgments as to what is credible and what isn't in them. I place them below the Inquiry testimonies in value as evidence.
All right its getting late, so I'll just have to finish tomorrow or the next night. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10537
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 5:58 am: |
|
>>or Stone made up the story about the compass headings for reasons that are subject to speculation.<<
Speculation it may be, but I think Dave Gittins nailed it earlier. Had criminal charges been preferred, Stone almost certainly would have been in the Defendant's Dock right along with Captain Lord. I doubt he was so dense as to be unaware of that. When you know it's a possibility that you may have to account for yourself to a judge and a jury, that tends to give you an incentive to spin things a bit.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 131
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 6:54 am: |
|
Hi Sam, how are you? You make several excellent points. Using just some of the provable non-disputed facts alone, you have demonstrated that it is indeed possible to objectively reach several conclusions regarding this whole issue.
I look forward to reading more from you on this topic, you have a knack for being able to illustrate your points so that anyone can understand them, and tying together a lot of pieces of evidence that haven't been looked at in depth or seriously considered in conjunction with each other previously.
Dave G., I promise that one of these days I will get around to purchasing your e-book, I've heard very good things about it and have wanted to read it for a while, particularly your section on this topic. Funds have been short lately, but it is on my list for certain.
Dave M., I think you hit the nail on the head in your evaluation of Stone's testimony. It does appear as if he was unsure of what he saw and was struggling with it, especially when running down the points and counter points about the rockets out loud, and then seeing that several of the points indicated that the rockets could not have come from beyond the steamer on the horizon.
Paul wrote the following:
"Their relative positions should have stayed pretty much the same until the Titanic sank, as both ships were drifting in the Labrador current. That is the opinion of the 1992 reappraisal."
I will not spend a lot of time on this, because I am sure that Sam would like to address your points himself, and I don't want to put words in his mouth or step on his toes, but the 1992 reappraisal is severely flawed when it comes to this particular conclusion. Sam posted evidence some time ago on this message board of satellite images which indicate that while the Labrador does flow generally to the Southwest, there is enough variation over short distances to make the conclusion that the two ships would drift at the same rate, in the same direction, especially at distances of 10+ miles apart, tenuous at best. It just isn't a variable that they were aware of, so it wasn't factored in.
Hope all of you have had a nice week so far. |
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Username: oceanic3
Post Number: 180
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Hi Paul (Lee)
You are right that the upper distance limit for the explosion at the *top* of the rocket's trajectory is about forty miles. My point is that Gibson states that he saw a detonating flash, *followed* by the streak into the sky. This flash would therefore be the detonation that launched the rocket, which took place on Titanic's bridge IIRC. Since the bridge height is considerably less than the peak height of the rocket, the upper distance limit is considerably reduced.
I once set this problem for some undergraduate physics students, as an excerise in rotating coordinate frames, to work out the height of the bridge above the sea when the rockets were being launched (given that Titanic's name plates were about level with the sea surface at this time). Then I had them work out the distance to the horizon from both ships and calculate the upper distance limit. They did pretty well. I held back from asking them to work out abnormal refraction effects though :-)
Cheers
Paul |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Ah, I see now. 15 miles sounds right from my own estimate - http://www.btinternet.com/~dr_paul_lee/TitanCalif2.htm |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 172
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Y'know, I've often wondered about Gibsons detonating flash. ( oo-er, missus )
We're again faced with what he saw, what he thinks he saw, and what he wants the Inquiry to think he saw, as with Stone.
Gibson, to me, seems to be more capable of dealing with the probability that they had watched the Titanic sink than Stone was. However, where Stone tries to rationalise the un-rational, I wonder if Gibson errs the other way and indulges in a little poetic license ?
For I wonder - did the rockets on Titanic fire off with the sort of detonation that would have given a flash visible ten to sixteen miles away ? That sounds rather dangerous to the people standing in much closer proximity to the rocket as it fires up. Or did Gibson, keen to be helpful, get a little carried away ?
Likewise with his comment that " She seems to have a big side out of the water now ".
Warmest regards
dave |
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Username: oceanic3
Post Number: 181
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
But Gibson isn't being questioned by the inquiries at this point, is he? These details are mentioned in his report to Capt. Lord. Would he have had any reason to lie about what he saw? To my mind, he seems very clear in his statement.
Also, if we believe that he could see the faint trail, then I have no problem believing that he saw the launch flash as well. I guess we have to decide if he saw the trail. I'm inclined to think that he did - it was a very clear night.
Cheers
Paul |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 173
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Ah.
Right - then you are correct, he would not have any reason to embroider matters.
Y'know - it's nice to see these matters debated openly, without rancour and with people willing to pool information rather than get heated at one another.
Thanks and warmest regards to all
dave |
|
