| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 12:08 am: | 
|
Hi Sam, Thanks! I am sure that there was mention of the heading though, but can't check ATM! |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:57 am: |
|
My mistake. It was Stone:
8017. When after 4? - Just after 4 o'clock - a few minutes possibly. The Chief Officer relieved me. I gave him a full report of everything I had seen and everything I had reported to the Master, his instructions, when the steamer disappeared, and the way she was bearing - the whole information regarding the watch. He looked over on the port beam, and he remarked to me, "There she is; there is that steamer; she is all right." I looked at the steamer through the glasses, and I remarked to him "That is not the same steamer; she has two masthead lights." I saw a steamer then just abaft the port beam showing two masthead lights apparently heading much in the same direction as ourselves. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Hi Paul: At least he was consistent about the relative bearing of the 4 AM steamer. In his written account to Lord on 18 April, Stone wrote:
I said, "Then that isn't the steamer I saw first," took up the glasses and just made out a four-masted steamer with two masthead lights a little abaft our port beam, and bearing about S., we were heading about W.N.W."
Stone didn't say how he arrived at that conclusion. Did he see her sidelight, or was it the orientation of her two mast lights? Or was he just making an assumption that the other ship would be heading in the same direction? The real question is, of course, what ship was this? If this was the "yellow-funneled" steamer that Sewart and Lord talked about, then it is likely that it was the Mount Temple which was arriving from the southwest. Remember that Steward said that Stone told him that he thought he noticed a light in the south around 3:40. Apparently, Stone did not pay too much attention to this new visitor if Stewart had to point it out to him at 4 AM. This again tells me something about Stone as an observer.
Moore of the MT seemed to be quite specific about the time he cut his engines being 3:25. But then he said he let her drift to take the way off the ship, and apparently went on from there slowly because they were getting into ice. Now Moore said that he thought he was about 14 miles from CQD site at 3:25, but he cut his engines at 3:25 and then went slowly afterward for about an hour. There is no way he could have covered 14 miles going slowly over that period of time. As he admitted, he really had no way of knowing where he really was when he stopped because there were no observations to take at that time. If you plot out his movements to that time, his ship should have been to the WSW of the CQD site, but as it turned out he was much further east than he thought.
It is interesting how this "yellow-funneled" steamer becomes the third mystery ship in Senan's book, the one that suddenly showed up on the eastern side of the ice field according to Senan, and then later disappears apparently in broad daylight unnoticed and never again seen by anyone. Stone and Stewart said that that unidentified 4-masted steamer was located about south of them. Lord at the American Inquiry said it was southwest of them about 8 miles off when seen about 5 AM. Lord in his 1959 affidavit changes the direction to the SSE of them. - Whatever works I guess.
Oh, that little issue that Senan brings up about why if they were the "yellow-funneled" steamer seen by the Californian since 4 AM, why was the Californian not seen by the MT at that time? I have only to look to what Stone said. Stone said she was a little abaft the beam. If this is accurate, then from the MT the Californian would be to their northward and heading WNW. The Californian mastlights and red sidelight would be shut out from view, and the rest of the ship's lights not all that noticeable that far off.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Hi Sam, My WWW access is not too good at the moment, so I have to rely on memory and notes. MT was heading NE to the Titanic's CQD position and after arriving there at 4.25, she headed to the SE. It seems to me that she was headed in an easterly direction at this time.
The Carpathia was heading north west before arriving at Boxhall's boat - a very convenient match with Stone's evidence.
But what about the yellow funnel? I have two guesses - the first is that the twilight could have made an orange coloured funnel appear yellow. This might be the same effect you see with sodium street lights.
The other explanation is that Stone et al lied about what they had seen. After if, if they hadn't seen the Titanic that night, then there was no way they could have seen the Carpathia. A little modification of funnel colour removes this possibility. Stewart I don't trust - compare his version of what he told Evans with what Evans himself said when he was woken up that morning. Obviously someone was lying. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 12:22 am: |
|
I have been busy the last few days and now have a chance to read all the posts.
I want to go back to the arrival time of the Californian at the Carpathia.
First, I'm not going to put any stock in Bisset's remembering any exact times 48 years after the event. No doubt he remembered seeing the Californian, but the time he mentions 48 years later cannot be taken as exact. I am going to rely on the 1912 testimony primarily and there is quite a bit. I am not opposed to using later testimony if it corroborates the 1912 testimony and gives some additional details. But one has to be very careful in its use. I will give more examples in future posts.
So I am not relying on Bisset's time first revealed 48 years later.
Secondly, wireless operator Evans in his radio room would be quite aware of the time. He had his New York clock and his ship's time clock or else he just converted for ship's time. He was using 1 hour 55 minutes ahead of New York, which put him 5 minutes ahead of Lord's 1 hour 50 minutes based upon the noon longitude of April 14. Evans was also in a more independent position being an employee of the Marconi company. I see no evidence that he was a dishonest man. Evans thought they arrived "about half past 8." 8:30 am his time would be 8:25 am Lord's ship time. I not saying it was precisely 8:30 am as it could have been 8:25 am. I say close to 8:30 am.
Thirdly, I will post a detailed analysis of Captain Rostron's testimony. I do not believe there is any contradiction between his US evidence and his Affidavit which he affirmed in his evidence at London. It follows next as a long post, but I had to do some detailed reasoning. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 64
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 1:15 am: |
|
Below is a more complete citation from Captain Rostron’s testimony in New York and London
April 19, 1912 New York City
“I maneuvered the ship and we gradually got all the boats together. We got all the boats alongside and all the people up aboard by 8:30.
I was then very close to where the Titanic must have gone down, as there was a lot of hardly wreckage but small pieces of broken-up stuff nothing in the way of anything large.
At 8 o'clock the Leyland Line steamer Californian hove up, and we exchanged messages. I gave them the notes by semaphore about the Titanic going down, and that I had got all the passengers from the boats; but we were then not quite sure whether we could account for all the boats. I told them: "Think one boat still unaccounted for." He then asked me if he should search around, and I said, "Yes, please." It was then 10:50.
I want to go back again, a little bit.
At 8:30 all the people were on board. I asked for the purser
….
Senator SMITH. You picked up a message from the Californian, did you not?
Mr. ROSTRON. No, we did not pick up a message. Wait a minute. We knew the Californian was about, because the operator had told me he had heard the Californian reply to those signals. That is all.
At 8 o'clock in the morning he hove in sight. This was at the wreck, and I left him when I returned to New York at 8.50, I think it was, when I put on full speed to come back. He was searching the vicinity of the wreckage, and I left for New York.”
June 21, 1912 London, England
“25550. (Mr. Bucknill.) Perhaps I had better read it and ask him if it is correct. (To the Witness.) On the 4th June did you make an affidavit in New York? - Yes.
25551. Did you say then: "I approached the position of the "Titanic" 41.46 N. L., 50.14 W. L. on a course substantially N. 52 W. (true), reaching the first boat shortly after 4 a.m. It was daylight at about 4.20 a.m. At 5 o'clock it was light enough to see all round the horizon. We then saw two steamships to the northwards, perhaps seven or eight miles distant. Neither of them was the 'Californian.' One of them was a four-masted steamer with one funnel, and the other a two-masted steamer with one funnel. I never saw the 'Mount Temple' to identify her. The first time that I saw the 'Californian' was at about eight o'clock on the morning of 15th April. She was then about five to six miles distant, bearing W.S.W. true, and steaming towards the 'Carpathia.' The 'Carpathia' was then in substantially the position of the 'Titanic' at the time of the disaster as given to us by wireless. I consider the position of the 'Titanic,' as given to us by her Officers, to be correct." You swore that? - Yes.”
First, please note that twice in his US testimony Captain Rostron states that all the people were up aboard at 8:30 am.
Secondly, Rostron stated in the US “At 8 o'clock the Leyland Line steamer Californian hove up, and we exchanged messages. I gave them the notes by semaphore about the Titanic going down, and that I had got all the passengers from the boats;”
If the Californian arrived at the Carpathia at 8:00 am and the messages by semaphore began immediately (as Groves testified), then how could Rostron tell Captain Lord that he had all the passengers up aboard a few minutes after 8:00 am when he did not complete that task until 8:30 am? That is an impossibility. Captain Lord also testified in the US that the last of the people were being brought up from the boats when he arrived. This leads us to conclude that the Californian arrived at 8:30 am or just a few minutes before.
Thirdly, please study the definition of the word “hove” from the following four dictionaries.
“Webster Illustrated Contemporary Dictionary; Chicago: J. G. Ferguson Publishing Company, 1988.
Heave, past tense heaved or (chiefly nautical) hove
Definition 9: a To move or proceed: said of ships
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/48/H0114800.html
4. Inflected forms: past tense and past participle hove
Nautical a. To move in a certain direction or to a specified position: The frigate hove alongside.
PHRASAL VERB: heave to Nautical 1. To turn a sailing ship so that its bow heads into the wind and the ship lies motionless except for drifting, in order to meet a storm: The brig hove to. 2. To turn an engine-powered vessel in a similar situation so that its bow heads into the seas while proceeding at low speed.
IDIOM: heave into sight (or view) To rise or seem to rise over the horizon into view, as a ship.
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=38261
hove
verb LITERARY
hove in(to) sight/view appeared:
After 30 minutes, a large ship hove into sight on the horizon.
Merriam-Webster Online
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hove
Main Entry: 1heave
Pronunciation: 'hEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): heaved or hove /'hOv/; heav·ing
4 a : PULL, PUSH <heaving> b : to move a ship in a specified direction or manner c past usually hove : to move in an indicated way <the>
- heave to : to halt the headway of a ship (as by positioning a sailboat with the jib aback and the rudder turned sharply to windward)”
Please note that "hove" means for a ship to proceed or move.
"Heave to" or "hove to" has a different meaning than "heave into sight" or "hove into sight."
Heave (hove) to “PHRASAL VERB: heave to Nautical 1. To turn a sailing ship so that its bow heads into the wind and the ship lies motionless except for drifting, in order to meet a storm: The brig hove to. 2. To turn an engine-powered vessel in a similar situation so that its bow heads into the seas while proceeding at low speed. “
Hove into sight – “IDIOM: heave into sight (or view) To rise or seem to rise over the horizon into view, as a ship.”
“hove in(to) sight/view appeared: After 30 minutes, a large ship hove into sight on the horizon.”
“to move in an indicated way <the>”
Fourthly, please note that Captain Rostron in his US testimony stated that “At 8 o'clock the Leyland Line steamer Californian hove up.” “Hove up” means the Californian proceeding came into view up over the horizon. Rostron also said in the US, “At 8 o'clock in the morning he [Californian] hove in sight.” “Hove in sight” means that the Californian proceeding came into sight on the horizon. Captain Rostron is using “hove up” and “hove in sight” as synonyms. He never said the Californian "hove to" at 8 o'clock in the morning.
Fifthly, in London on June 21, 1912 Captain Rostron affirmed the affidavit he swore out in New York on June 4, 1912.
“The first time that I saw the 'Californian' was at about eight o'clock on the morning of 15th April. She was then about five to six miles distant, bearing W.S.W. true, and steaming towards the 'Carpathia.'”
Captain Rostron expanded on what he had testified before Senator Smith in New York on April 19 (the hearings moved to Washington, DC later). He also used more lay language as opposed to nautical to explain. He clearly states he first saw the Californian at about eight o’clock on the 15th April, she was five to six miles distant, bearing W.S.W. true, and steaming towards the ‘Carpathia.’
His affirmation in London of his earlier affidavit in New York on June 4 is quite certain. "You swore that? - Yes."
Steaming (affidavit and London testimony) is the same as hove (proceeding)in his US testimony.
There is no contradiction between his US testimony and his New York affidavit that he affirmed in London. All mean the same. He first saw the Californian 5 to 6 miles away coming into view over the horizon. She would have arrived at the Carpathia about 8:25 or 8:30 am when steaming at 13 knots.
Captain Rostron’s testimony in no way implies the possibility of an 8:00 am arrival of the Californian at the side of the Carpathia.
As I wrote in an earlier post even if the Californian did not clear the ice field until 6:35 am and turned to port to head to the Carpathia at 7:55 am (and not 8:00 am), I still calculate a minimum 15 mile north-south distance between the Californian's position at 6:00 am and the Carpathia's position at 8:30 am.
In conclusion, Lord, Stewart, Evans, and Rostron are all in agreement in 1912 that the Californian arrived at the Carpathia's position about 8:30 am on April 15, 1912.
I will address issues in other posts as I have time. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1638
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
But didn't Bisset make contemporay notes and diaries? |
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 2862
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 10:50 am: |
|
Bisset says he made contemporary notes. However, I fear that much of his tale comes courtesy of A Night to Remember. A notable example is his account of ice warnings allegedly received by Carpathia. In 1912, Rostron said he received no ice warnings, other than those provided by the New York Cunard office.
Bisset's account of the signals he sent Californian is also suspect, to put it kindly. How did he know the casualty figures at that time?
Paul Slish is quite right about the arrival time of 8-30am. Cyril Evans is another witness to it. Anyway, it was physically impossible for Californian to reach Carpathia from Mount Temple in half an hour.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1641
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Th Californian cleared the ice at 6.30am (approx), and met up with the Carpathia at 8.30. Two hours of steaming at nearly full speed would give a distance of 24 miles. If the Mount Temple's estimate of her distance to the Carpathia is correct, and the Californian passed closed by, then the distance would be about 8 miles, and perhaps a change of course to the Carpathia at 8.30 less 8/12's of an hour = 7.50am. So, that gives 16 miles spare, to cover in 1 hour 20 mins. or 12 knots.
But if the MT saw the Californian 8 miles to the north between 6 and 6.30am, then what did the Californian do in the intervening time? She could have covered the reduced distance in a fraction of the missing 1 h 20m. |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 178
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Just a quick note to say that I'm still really impressed with the careful thought and analysis that is going into all this and I'm enthralled by the discussions.
Thanks to all of you - I'm enjoying this immensely and learning all the time. Cheers folks.
warmest regards
dave |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 10:13 pm: |
|
Hello Dave Gittins. To quote something you wrote in your book if I may:
"Daylight brought good visibility, but the morning’s events are imperfectly known. The evidence is full of subjective estimates of distances and times. Even the bearings mentioned were in some cases probably given only in the most general terms."
I quite agree especially when it was 6:00 that they started steaming, 6:30 when they reached open water, 7:30 when they reached the MT, 8:00 when they turned to cut across the ice, and 8:30 when when they reached the Carpathia. Very neat little times aren't they? I could see round-off to the a nearest 5 minute clock interval, but all those neat times are susspect as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather depend on trying to correlate an event to something less subjective than times taken to the nearest hour or half hour on the clock unless it were something like a change of watch. And even there too there can be 10 minutes of uncertainty as the command doesn't transfer until the current OOW leaves the deck.
The other thing that is being done here is treated here is taking distance covered without allowance for time to come to a stop from full ahead or to go from say half ahead and reach full ahead speeds. And this tends to inflate the calculated distances.
One point that I found intersting in your ebook was the possible explanation of why the Californian took an hour to get down to the MT if Moore's estimate of how far the Californian was at 6 AM was about right. You said that Lord may have considerably underestimated the width of the icefield that he crossed at 6 AM citing that Moore and his officers put it at 5-6 miles, and as the Californian was traversing it diagonally, Lord may have spent a far longer amount of time in than what was written in his log.
This is one point that I don't believe happened unless by what you mean as far longer was something like 10-15 minutes. Both 3/O Groves and poor old Gill said they were awakened at 6:40 AM, and the ship had a good speed on it with Gill saying they clear of the ice field by time he got up on deck and Groves said he could feel her bumping the ice while running at a good clip (18164-18169 and 8290-8295 and 8312-8325). This tends to suggest to me that by 6:40, when the rest of the crew was called out, they had just cleared the ice and started to go full ahead.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1643
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 11:06 pm: |
|
I see that the National Maritime Museum has the correspondence between Bisset and Walter Lord. If you can wait a few weeks, I'll head down and read what was said between them. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1252
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 12:39 am: |
|
Paul: That will be great. Every bit of additional information on all this is very helpful. Glad you can do that. Also hope things are going well with you these days.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 65
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 2:27 am: |
|
More on Californian steaming and times.
I agree with Sam that the times along the route are not precise right to the minute. That is why I wrote up my posts with the concept that they could be off five minutes or so one way or the other. The ones I think are quite solid are the start time (6:00 a.m.) and the arrival time (8:30 a.m.). I'm even willing to go with 8:25 a.m. for the arrival time. It is a natural thing to record when you start and when you stop on an attempted rescue mission.
3rd Officer Groves' gives us more evidence in his testimony.
"8352. What time did you reach the "Carpathia"? - I think it would be about 7.45.
8353. Did she signal to you first? - Yes.
8354. That the "Titanic" had struck an iceberg? - Not at first. The first signal shown was fixed on the jumper stay. That is a signal that she wanted to semaphore.
8355. Did she signal to you by semaphore? - Yes.
8356. What did she tell you? - I think the first question she asked was had we any survivors on board, survivors or people, I do not know which she said.
8357. Did you answer by semaphore? - We did.
8358. You said, No? - We said, No.
8359. Did she say anything more? - Yes; I think the next thing which happened was, I fancy, we asked him if we could be of any assistance, and he said, No.
8360. Were you personally signaling? - No, I was not, but I was reading it.
8361. Anything more - any more messages? - That passed between us? - Yes.
8362. (The Commissioner.) Tell us shortly? - He told us the "Titanic" had struck an iceberg at 12 o'clock and had sunk at 3, and they had 800 or 700 - I am not sure which - people on board, including Mr. Bruce Ismay. When we asked him if we could be of any assistance they said, no. And then Captain Lord suggested that we should search down to leeward.
8363. Your captain? - Yes."
Now please note that the semaphore exchange began immediately when the Californian arrived. I did a little semaphore when I was in the scouts and it does not take that long to send a brief message.
Here they are:
[Car]"Do you have any survivors on board?" "No"
[Cal] "Can we be of any assistance?" "No"
[Car] "Titanic" had struck an iceberg at 12 o'clock and had sunk at 3, and we have 800 or 700 people on board, including Mr. Bruce Ismay."
[Cal] "Suggest we search down to leeward" "Yes"
That was about it. How long would this take? They would be to the third message within 5 to 7 minutes. As I wrote before, Rostron repeatedly said he had all the passengers on board by 8:30 a.m. If the Californian arrived at 7:45 a.m. or even 8:05 a.m. (approximate Bisset) how could Rostron so soon state the passengers were on board? We wouldn't be to 8:30 a.m. yet. I suggest a maximum time of 20 minutes to complete all four messages.
"8364. Did you search to leeward? - Yes.
8365. Did you find anything? - Only boats and wreckage.
8366. Empty boats? - Boats with no people in.
8367. At about 9 a.m. did the "Carpathia" steam off? - Yes, almost exactly at 9 a.m., because I heard her bell strike."
Rostron said he steamed away at 8:50 a.m. That might have been the time he gave the order and it took a few minutes to get moving. Lord said 9:05 a.m. Groves is probably almost right on the mark as he heard the Carpathia's bell ring (2 bells for 9:00 a.m.). Notice also that Groves was not depending on his own watch and his time agrees closely with Lord's.
Here's the summary. Californian arrives about 8:30 am. Semaphore messages are exchanged for about 20 minutes. Carpathia prepares to leave as she knows Californian is there to search for any other possible survivors. Rostron has 700 survivors who just went through quite an ordeal. He wants to get out of there. Within 5 to 10 minutes he is on his way and it is about 9:00 a.m. I used the term "about" for all these times, and to me the whole scenario makes sense for time duration.
As I wrote before it may have been as simple as Groves' missing a winding on his watch. It ran down and was 40 minutes slow. He winds it when he gets woken up by Stewart, but in his excitement does not check it against the wheelhouse clock. So his 7:45 am is 8:25 am for everyone else. His "10:40 am exactly" departure time from the wreckage is 11:20 am for everyone else. It correlates.
Noticing the two occasions of the 40 minute discrepancy is written up by Senan Molony in "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" p. 216.
The speculation on Groves' slow watch is solely mine. If it did happen that way, it gives a reasonable explanation for the time difference, and in this case is doesn't make anyone a bad guy. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Thanks Sam, but actually I'm about to become one of "The Unwanted" any day soon. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1254
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Interesting speculation Paul S. Let me offer some other observations.
As I posted yesterday, the 6:40 AM time of Groves being called seems to perfectly match with the 6:40 AM time that Gill recalled. (One of the few things that may be believed from Gill as it can be correlated.) Both of these are close enough to the "about 6:30" time that Lord said they cleared the ice. It seems that Capt. Lord called all hands as they were coming out of the ice and put preparations in place for rescue.
The 6:50 time that Groves said he came on deck was probably an estimate based on how long it took him to get dressed and get up there. But he also said he first went to 2/O Stone's cabin to find out what he knew about what Stewart told him, then got dressed, and then went topside. In his testimony he said the ship was already under way when he was woken up, and when he got topside he sees ice and icebergs all around and their boats being swung out. He did not say anything about seeing any other ships nearby when he first arrived topside. When asked the time, he said he thought it was about 6:50 "but you understand the time is only approximate." This seems a reasonable estimate based on what he said he did but it could easily have been a few minutes later. He was then asked if there were any other vessels nearby and said yes and talked about seeing the Carpathia on the port beam about 5 miles off.
What I think is overlooked by many when you follow the questioning (8313-8352) is that the first thing Groves talked about when coming topside is not seeing other vessels but that there were icebergs all around and they were pushing through ice (loose ice I presume by then) going at a good pace. He was not specifically asked if the time he noticed the Carpathia was the same time as when he first came topside, but most people assume that to be the case. Regarding his sighting of the MT, it is interesting that he said, "I fancy one of them [the MT] was in sight at the same time as I noticed this four-master [the Carpathia]...When I noticed her [the MT] first - I had been paying particular attention to this other steamer [Carpathia] - I should think she would be perhaps a mile and a half away from us." He also mentioned that they continued on their course for "a little time" before they turned straight for the Carpathia.
So he thinks he saw the two steamers about the same time, the MT much closer than the Carpathia, but was paying more attention to the Carpathia because she had her house flag at half mast looking at her through glasses at the request of Capt. Lord.
What a person remembers weeks later and what they actually saw at the time of an event can be quite different. Was it about 5 miles as seen through glasses, or was it about 5 miles as seen with the naked eye? Or was his "about 5 miles" when the Carpathia was on their port beam just before they starboarded and "made practically straight for her?" The latter to me makes the most sense and is what I believe Groves remembered about the particulars of the distance given. The Californian continuing on for a while was to get into a position to cut across the ice in the shortest possible path. Again that 5 miles abeam fits more with the situation at the time they turned straight for the Carpathia, not when he first spotted the ship, which itself may not have been the time he arrived topside.
Grove's time estimate as to their arrival at the Carpathia, "I think it would be about 7.45," is apparently not based on any watch or clock observation, but only a guess as to the time he had been up on deck. They were quite busy making arrangements for rescue, and the passage of time tends to get unnoticed. I would place little value in that 7:45 time.
As far as the time they left the wreckage, his 10:40 departure time was very specific, and that was probably taken from the wheelhouse clock. Groves said, "Ten-forty exactly. That is when we resumed our course." Notice that he didn't say they left the wreckage, but that they resumed their course. And this is a key point overlooked many many researchers, and a point not at all in conflict with an 11:20 departure from the wreckage.
This is what I wrote in an unpublished set of notes:
GMT of local apparent noon for Californian’s noon position for April 15th at 50° 9’W was 11 minutes later than the GMT of local apparent noon for April 14th at 47° 25’W. This means that the time of local apparent noon on April 15th if seen on an unadjusted clock still set to April 14th time would have been at 12:11. In other words, the time from when they left the wreckage (11:20) to taking that noon sun sight was about 51 minutes. The distance from the reported wreckage position to their noon position works out to 6 nautical miles. This distance over 51 minutes gives a speed of 7 knots over ground. If we take Grove’s data, we have a time difference of 1 hour 31 minutes between when they set their course and when they took that noon sun sight. Groves also thought they went about 11 miles. If they made 11 miles in 1 hour 31 minutes then that too gives us about 7 knots over ground. Both sets of data give us the same result for the speed she was making after the course change.
But we also know from Capt. Moore of the Mount Temple that the ice field was about 5 to 6 miles in width down in the vicinity of the wreckage. This tends to support the distance traveled that Stewart estimated and agrees very well with the 6 miles between the reported position of the wreckage and their noon sun sight. As we have seen, Groves agrees that when they left the area they were within a mile of the wreckage, and he took part in the solar observations at noon. So is there an explanation that can reconcile what Groves said and what was recorded in the log book? Groves seemed to be quite precise about the time the course was altered.
I believe the answer is very simple. The difference in time for the course change between what was written in the logbook and what Grove said is 40 minutes. At 7 knots the distance traveled is only 4.6 miles. The most likely scenario is that the Californian had completed its last search circle at full speed to leeward at 10:40 AM. Two complete turns at full speed (11 knots) in 1 hour 40 minutes would cover a diameter of almost 3 nautical miles each. At the completion of their last circle they ended up about 4 to 5 miles east of the wreckage which was easily spotted since it included those lifeboats that were set adrift. The course was then set to N 60° W by compass (270° true) which took them back to the wreckage which they passed at 11:20 AM, and then changed their course to N 59° W by compass to make 271° true (per Lord) as they departed the area. As they were coming out of the ice field it was close to local apparent noon. It was then that they took their noon sun sight at 15:21 GMT, and shortly thereafter, Capt. Lord went to full speed ahead.
When they were coming out of the ice field at LAN the Frankfurt was seen coming from the northwest. The Frankfurt was heading southeastward reaching 41° 35’ N, 50° 15’ W at 15:20 GMT. The Californian was coming out of the ice field ahead of the Frankfurt at this time, and then turned to the east after the Californian had passed across her bow.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 66
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 3:10 am: |
|
Sam,
Very nice reasoning and very well put. I have just two little suggestions.
1. The ice field was not necessarily the same density at all places going from north to south. It was not easy to get through it. The Mount Temple did not go through it. The Birma after reaching the approximate SOS position did not go through it, but steamed south and went around the southern end. The Carpathia did not go through it, but likewise steamed around the southern end. The Californian did go through it three times. I think Captain Lord went a little south of the Carpathia as he was looking for the least dangerous place he could find to go through the icefield as opposed to the very shortest distance through it. As you pointed out, the Frankfurt was coming down from the north presumably looking for a place to go through and only went through where she saw the Californian coming out.
2. Here are my thoughts on the width of the icefield. There was the more dense icefield and then loose ice for some distance on either side. I think the 5 to 6 miles refers to the whole thing, dense and loose. The two to three miles refers to the dense portion.
Lord said
"Six o'clock, proceeded slow, pushing through the thick ice.
6.30, clear of thickest of ice; proceeded full speed, pushing the ice.
8.30, stopped close to steamship Carpathia."
Groves said
"8313. And go up on the bridge? - Yes, I went straight up on the bridge as soon as I was dressed.
8314. What did you find when you got there? - Ice all round us and icebergs.
8315. Was your ship under way? - The ship was under way then, and I could feel her bumping the ice, and I knew she had got a good speed on by that."
Groves also said the Mount Temple was in ice and she was a mile (Moore) east of the Californian when the Californian passed.
"8347. Was she stopped? - Stopped.
8348. In the ice? - In the ice."
So we have the Californian after clearing the thick ice, "pushing the ice", "bumping the ice", "ice all around us", and the Mount Temple "in the ice" to the eastward. So I think that clarifies the 2 to 3 miles wide thick ice vs. the 5 to 6 miles wide for the whole ice field of thick and loose.
When the Californian resumed her course Groves even referred to only 1/2 mile of dense ice width.
"8370. After that did you see much more ice? - After 10.40?
8371. Yes? - Yes, we saw a lot of ice; we passed a big field; we passed through a particularly long field about half a mile wide, and we had to absolutely force our way through it."
So when Moore said it was 5 to 6 miles wide and Lord said it as 2 to 3 miles wide, I don't see any contradiction. Likewise when Lord said 5 miles wide in his report to the hydrographic office. 5 to 6 miles wide refers to width of dense and loose ice. 2 to 3 miles wide refers to the denser ice. Groves even talks of just 1/2 mile of dense ice down around 41 33 N.
Again, your post was very well done. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 67
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 3:30 am: |
|
Here are some more thoughts on the final portion of the voyage of the Californian to the Carpathia.
At what time did the Californian starboard (turn to port) and head for the Carpathia? Captain Lord testified that it was about 8:00 a.m. Do we have any way of verifying this?
I believe we do based on the testimony of Captain Rostron and Third Officer Groves.
First here is testimony from Groves.
“8323. What were they? - There was a four-masted steamer abeam on our port side.
8324. What steamer was that? - I did not know at the time, but I knew afterwards she was the "Carpathia."
8325. Abeam on your port side? - Abeam on our port side.
8326. In what direction were you going? - That I could not say.
8327. You did not notice? - No.
8328. How far off was she? - I should think she would be about 5 miles - possibly more, possibly less, but about five.”
Now the Californian was at the time heading south or south by east true according to Captain Lord. So if the Carpathia was abeam on the port side, she was pretty close to due east from the Californian. This gives us the east-west distance. We will perform some calculations based upon 4 miles, 5 miles, and 6 miles distance since Groves said it could possibly be more or less. It was a clear day and there is no reason Groves couldn’t have made this accurate an estimate of distance.
Now you can solve all the lengths of the three sides of a right triangle by trigonometry if one angle and the length of one side are known. We have one side, the east-west distance, which we will call the side adjacent to the Carpathia.
Captain Rostron testified the Californian bore WSW true when he saw her steaming towards the Carpathia. This means the angle from the Carpathia to the Californian was 22.5 degrees. Now I realize it was probably not that angle exactly, but we are just looking for approximate reasonable figures. So using Captain Rostron’s bearing and Third Officer Groves’ distance we calculate the following table. The north-south distance would be the distance the Californian steamed south after Groves’ “Carpathia on the port beam sighting” until she turned to port and headed to the Carpathia. This is the opposite side of the triangle from the Carpathia. The distance to the Carpathia at the turn is the hypotenuse of the triangle.
E-W distance,N-S distance,Distance to Carpathia
4 miles, 1.66 miles, 4.33 miles
5 miles, 2.07 miles, 5.41 miles
6 miles, 2.49 miles, 6.50 miles
Now Captain Rostron testified when he first saw the Californian she was 5 to 6 miles distance from him. So we can eliminate the first line in the table and conclude Groves’ distance of 5 to 6 miles east from the beam is about correct.
Groves then said.
“8337. What did your vessel do then? - We continued on our course for a little time after I had told the captain she had a red funnel with a black top and the house flag half-masted, and the next thing that was done we starboarded.
8338. You made straight for her? - We made practically straight for her.”
If the Californian steamed south for 2 or 2 ˝ miles after Groves sighted the Carpathia on the port beam that correlates well with “We continued on our course for a little time…and the next thing that was done we starboarded [turned to port]. 2 to 2 ˝ miles at 13 knots is about 9 to 11 minutes steaming time.
Then the Californian “made practically straight for her” [Carpathia]. So now, according to our table, the Californian would have been between 5 ˝ and 6 ˝ miles from the Carpathia. Captain Rostron testified that the Californian was 5 to 6 miles from the Carpathia when he first saw her about 8:00 a.m. That means the Californian made her turn to port to head to the Carpathia at 8:00 a.m. or just a few minutes before.
This agrees with what Captain Lord said.
“7014. Did you about half-past 7 pass close to the "Mount Temple"? - I did.
7015. She was also stopped? - She was stopped.”
“7256. Only one other question. You came to the point where the "Titanic" had been reported as having foundered, 41ş 46 N., if I rightly understood you, and 50ş 14 W.? - Yes.
7257. How far from that point was the "Mount. Temple"? - I think she was very close to it. I should think she had been looking for the, "Titanic" boats or wreckage, or something, she was stopped there.
7258. You went on from that point? - Yes.
7259. In what direction did you proceed after that point? - I steered, as far as I recollect, about South or South by East true from there along the edge of the ice - the western edge of the ice.
7260. How, far did you go till you got to the wreckage? - I passed her somewhere about half-past seven - somewhere in the vicinity of half-past seven. I got there at half-past eight.
7261. What rate were you going at? - We were driving all we possibly could. The chief engineer estimates the speed at 13 1/2. I estimate it at 13.
7262. You were about an hour? - We were an hour.”
“7401. (Mr. Dunlop.) After 7.30 had you to navigate through the field ice again? - Yes, I ran along till I got to the "Carpathia" bearing north-east [compass] and then I cut straight through the ice at full speed.
7402. From 7.30 to 8.30? - We were not going through ice the whole of that time. We were running till it must have been about eight.”
Lord states they passed close to the Mount Temple about 7:30 am. They continued on and were running [along the ice south] until about 8:00 am and then the Californian turned to port and headed for the Carpathia arriving at 8:30 am.
In conclusion, the testimony of Captain Rostron and Third Officer Groves corroborates that of Captain Lord. The Californian ran south for about 30 minutes after passing the Mount Temple and at about 8:00 am turned to port and headed straight for the Carpathia. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1264
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Hi Paul S. Thanks for posting these thoughts on the ice field.
My own take on this is that there is no reason to assume that the ice field was uniformly thick over its length. Up where the Californian was stopped it was 2-3 miles, but down where the Carpathia and Mount Temple were it was 5-6 miles. Loose ice would be on both sides to some extent, but I believe when the estimates were given it was for thick ice, not the loose ice mixed with water. The width of the icefield at different places were all approximations of course, but there is another way to check on some of what was reported.
On the western edge the field ran for the most part SSE true. We have that from Moore, as you know, and also indirectly from Lord. Lord mentioned this with regard to the Frankfurt, "He was running along parallel with the ice, apparently trying to find an opening ... He was running about south-southeast, when I saw him, coming away from the northwest." SSE and running parallel to the icefield on the western side. On the other hand, Rostron said (in his report to the Cunard line) "the ice field trending from N.W. round by W. and S. to S.E., as far as we could see either way." And at the BI (25501), "and about two or three miles from the position of the “Titanic’s” wreckage we saw a huge ice-field extending as far as we could see, N.W. to S.E." At that time he first saw the field, well after daylight, he estimated he was about 4-5 miles from the field (25503-25504) and the wreckage he saw was 2-3 miles from the field. Of course he was on the eastern side of the field. Now these are all rough estimates, but if the eastern side was roughly heading NW to SE, and the western side was NNW to SSE, then I would expect the field to be less thick north of where the Carpathia was. To me this supports Lord's estimate of 2-3 miles where he was stopped.
The other point about how far south did the Californian steam before turning straight for the Carpathia. If the western side was running between SSE true and SxE true (per Lord), and after the turn toward the Carpathia he was seen coming from the WSW true, that makes the turn from a heading esentially parallel to the western edge of the field to one that is perpendicular to the western edge of the field. That is exactly what you want to do if you want to take the shortest distance across the ice. Lord took a big risk going through the ice, especially at full speed, one that no other ship's captain was willing to do as you pointed out.
The Carpathia was not stopped all the time since arriving at the scene. As Rostron said he was 4-5 miles from the ice field when it was it was light enough to see it, and (25498-25499) "When we got up to the wreckage it would be about twenty minutes to eight, or a quarter to eight, or something like that...It was only when we got to the last boat that we got close up to the wreckage...It would be about a quarter to eight when we got there."
So at this time he would have been 2-3 miles from the eastern edge of field. Rostron did not mention being in loose ice among the wreckage. This is why I put the distance between the two ships at the time Lord turned toward the Carpathia as 5+2=7 to 6+3=9 miles. I cannot trust Grove's 5 miles as being very accurate. Remember he also said the MT was about 1.5 miles ahead of them at that time just off their starboard bow. The 5 miles to the Carpathia at that time doesn't make sense, nor does the Carpathia off their port beam make sense if they were not yet down to where the MT was. But the Carpathia would have been in sight as they got near the stopped MT. Groves said he was asked to look at her through glasses and reported her funnel color and the flag at half mast. Now that does makes sense if she was still a good ways off. Maybe he remembered what the Carpathia looked like though glasses which would make the ship appear to be closer than it really was when he said 5 miles. It was several weeks after the event that he was questioned about it. Right now, this is where I'm coming out on this.
Paul, you also said that when the Californian passed the MT, the MT was a mile east of the Californian. Moore did say they passed about 1 mile off but he gave no direction. If Groves observation was correct, the MT was a little on their starboard side ahead of them. That would mean the Californian passed to the east of the stopped MT leaving the MT about a mile to her west when they passed along the western edge of the icefield.
The other thing you quoted regarding Lord's leading toward the Carpathia is: "I ran along till I got to the "Carpathia" bearing north-east [compass] and then I cut straight through the ice at full speed." If Lord's NE bearing were a compass bearing, than then that would correspond to a heading of NNE true, not ENE true. The reciprocal of Rostron's observation had the Californian heading ENE true (perpendicular to the western edge of the field). These two headings are 45 degrees apart. Only one can be right if Lord gave an accurate compass bearing. My feeling, however, is that Lord was not being very precise on this point, and was giving more of a general direction here, just like the times given were general and not very specific.
I'll have more to say about the times later on.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 9:20 pm: |
|
I don't think ship's ability or otherwise had anything to do with the thickness of the ice field. Captain Moore, of the MT said that his instructions forbade him from going through it. And I doubt if the Carpathia would travserse the field given what a lot of her new passengers had been through.
I am thankful to Dave Gittins for pointing out one thing: Groves' timings were obviously up the swanee. Look at BoT 8120-22. Lord said the bergs were seen at 6.30! |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1646
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Hi Sam, You have more knowledge of the Rules of the Road than me; doesn't it stipulate that passing ships go green-to-green? If so, and the MT was to the starboard of the Californian, then the Calif. would follow on this course.
Incidentally, I'm surprised that Groves saw the MT stopped in ice. It must have been very thin, or loose ice, as the orders were not to enter field ice. |
Henry Loscher
Member
Username: henry_loscher
Post Number: 59
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Is it possible that Groves is right about the time and Lord is wrong? Just a question. I wasn't there, so I don't know who is right. Maybe both were wrong about the time.
Henry Loscher |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1265
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Paul: The MT was stopped. The overtaking vessel must keep well clear of a vessel being overtaken. If the two were meeting each other, then both must alter course to starboard so that they pass on the port side of the other. That's red-to-red. If they were crossing, the vessel which has the other on the starboard side must give way. But again, the MT was stopped. Passing about a mile off is certainly keeping well clear, which is what the Californian did.
While on the subject of crossing ice fields, even though the Californian was steaming at full ahead, which I believe was 70 revolutions according to Lord, do you still think it was making 13 knots going through the pack ice? Also, when Rostron saw the Californian 5-6 miles off in the morning he was about 2-3 miles from eastern edge of the field up by the wreckage as he said picking up the last boat. If he was right, that puts the Californian from 2 to 4 miles from the eastern edge when she "hove up" in his sight.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 11:56 pm: |
|
My head hurts. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1266
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 11:59 pm: |
|
Henry, unless someone was directly looking at a clock, or there was the ringing of ship's bell, or an event that was logged such as the time of a wireless message, the times stated were only guesses. And that was my concern with the times that Lord and Stewart gave and wrote down later on in their log book. They always said it was "about" such and such a time. The times are all too neat, every on the hour, or on the half hour. That always raises a red flag with me. The uncertainty can be 15 minutes or so either way.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1267
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 12:05 am: |
|
Sorry about that Paul. When I said "If he was right, that puts the Californian from 2 to 4 miles from the eastern edge when she "hove up" in his sight," I should have made it clear that puts him just 2 to 4 miles westward of the eastern edge of the field as he was cutting through. The Carpathia of course was 2-3 miles eastward of the eastern edge and stopped.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 68
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 4:39 am: |
|
Sam,
It was a slip of the typing finger or the mind when I wrote that "Groves also said the Mount Temple was in ice and she was a mile (Moore) east of the Californian when the Californian passed."
I meant to write "she was a mile (Moore) WEST of the Californian when the Californian passed." Yes you are right that Moore did not specify a bearing. I was just referring to his distance. But we know the Carpathia was to the east of the Californian. So if she was somewhere to port and the Mount Temple was to starboard, then she had to be to the west of the Californian. My point was that there was ice to the west of the Californian where the Mount Temple was. I was demonstrating that the loose ice plus the thick ice made for a wider "field." Thank you for pointing out my error of "east" in stead of "west".
When Groves was awakened by Chief Officer Stewart and told about the Titanic, Groves said he was "rather excited" and who wouldn't be! So I agree with you that he just had the sequence of his sightings a little mixed up when he testified five weeks later. I think we are all agreed the Mount Temple was to the north of the Carpathia.
As far as Groves' estimate of distance to the Carpathia, I still think it is reasonably good. If the Mount Temple was around 50 09 W, then the Californian passed her at about 50 08 W. Then steaming S X E for about 4 miles the Californian could be at about 50 07 W when Groves sees the Carpathia abeam. If the Carpathia is at about 49 59 W, then she is about 6 miles EAST ( I got it right this time) from the Californian. Groves said about 5 miles, but possibly more or less. I think he is certainly in the ball park.
You are also correct that when Lord said the Carpathia bore northeast, if that was compass that would be NNE true. Another late night slip on my part. I agree with you that Rostron's SSW true is probably the correct bearing. If that is so, then as you said, Lord was just speaking approximately. Or perhaps Lord was referring to NE true which brings him to within two points of Rostron's bearing. Still a difference, but not as large. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 69
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 6, 2006 - 2:17 am: |
|
Another perspective on the Californian's voyage to the Carpathia on April 15, 1912.
What we are really interested in is how far was the Californian on a direct bearing at 6:00 a.m. from where she met the Carpathia at 8:30 a.m.? There is another way to calculate this.
The Californian first steamed through the ice field for 2 to 3 miles. We will assume 2 miles of this progress was westward and 1 mile southward. Since the Carpathia would have been somewhere to the south and east of the Californian, the 2 miles of westward progress would have taken the Californian away from the Carpathia. This accounts for 4 miles of the Californian’s steaming, as she would have to return eastward this 2 miles distance at some point on her voyage to the Carpathia. The Californian also steamed about 2.5 miles south of the Carpathia before heading for her on a bearing of ENE true. She would have to come back this distance north accounting for about another 5 miles of her steaming (2.5 + 2.5). So roughly 9 miles (4 + 5) of the Californian’s steaming did not account for any progress toward the Carpathia.
Next we calculate about how far in total the Californian steamed. She covered about 3 miles from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. She then worked up to full speed of 13 knots and steamed about 1 hour and 55 minutes. I’m taking 5 minutes off to allow for either a slightly later than 6:30 exit from the thick ice or a slightly earlier than 8:30 arrival at the Carpathia. This accounts for about 25 miles of steaming at 13 knots.
The amount of time required to increase speed from 6 knots upon clearing the thick ice up to 13 knots full speed does not significantly impact elapsed time. If it took 1 mile to work up to full speed, the Californian would have averaged 9.5 knots for that mile. That is the average between 6 knots and 13 knots. At 13 knots it takes 4.62 minutes to cover a mile. It takes 6.32 minutes to cover a mile at 9.5 knots. This increases the elapsed time by only 1.7 minutes, which is not significant. Even if it took 2 full miles to get up to full speed it would still only increase the elapsed time by 3.4 minutes to cover the two miles.
Also when the Californian cut her engines when getting close to the Carpathia another minute or two of time may have been consumed as the Californian slowed while she covered the final distance to arrive close by the Carpathia’s side.
A little time may have been lost when pushing through the thickest of the ice when the Californian turned to ENE and headed for the Carpathia. However, on the return trip through the ice by the Californian later in the morning, Third Officer Groves testified it was really thick only for a half mile width. This was further south than where the Californian cut through at about 8:00 a.m., but I’m going to assume the width of the thickest ice was similar where she cut through at about 8:00 am. This would probably consume a few extra minutes of time. Adding all the obstacles to progress up might have taken about a mile off the Californian’s total steamed mileage in one hour and 55 minutes.
Californian Chief Engineer Mahan, however, estimated the Californian’s top speed at 13.5 knots which would yield an extra mile of progress over 1 hour and 55 minutes. This would cancel out the 1 mile of progress lost through obstacles.
So I will stay with my estimate of 25 miles of steaming from clearing the thickest of the ice at approximately 6:30 a.m. Our total progress is 25 plus the 3 through the ice field equals 28 miles steamed. Now if we subtract out the total of 4.5 miles steamed away from the Carpathia (the two miles west initially and the 2.5 miles south beyond the Carpathia) and also subtract out 4.5 miles to return this distance, this computes to 9 miles of steaming. We subtract this 9 miles that did not contribute to getting any nearer the Carpathia from the 28 steamed in total and this gives us 19 miles. This is an estimate of the actual direct line distance from the Californian at 6:00 a.m. to where she met the Carpathia at 8:30 a.m. It is 19 miles.
In an earlier post I estimated the Californian’s 10:21 p.m., April 14 stop position as
42 00 N, 50 12 W. I then allowed for drift south to 41 59 N at the time the Titanic struck at 11:40 p.m. her time. I estimated the Titanic’s collision position as 41 46 N, 49 55 W closely agreeing with Captain de Coverly of the 1992 reappraisal. That would place the Titanic at the time of the collision about 18.5 miles SE true from the Californian.
Thus my estimate of the distance from the Californian to the Titanic closely matches my estimate of the distance from the Californian to the Carpathia. The Carpathia was close in to the wreckage where the Californian met her.
I then drew a graph of a course 3 miles W by S, 12 miles SSE, 6 miles S by E, and 7 miles ENE for a total of 28 miles. This put me on a point bearing about SSE 18 miles from the starting point on the graph. Now it is granted the courses are estimated and so are the exact distances on each course. Also I wasn’t using high quality drafting instruments so that could introduce a variation of ˝ or 1 mile. Interestingly enough, the distance measured on the graph of 18 miles from the Californian at 6:00 a.m. to where she met the Carpathia at 8:30 a.m. is only 1 mile different than the 19 miles I calculated above. The 19 miles was derived by taking my estimate of 28 total miles steamed minus the 9 miles total steamed that did not contribute to progress toward the Carpathia (4.5 miles out plus 4.5 miles back).
As a last check I estimate for drift for the Titanic after she struck and her wreckage after she sank. I estimate it as about 6 miles on a S by W current running at about 0.75 knots from 11:40 p.m. Titanic time up until 8:30 a.m. Carpathia time. The historical figures cited for the Labrador Current are 0.5 knots and Captain Knapp gives its general direction (Titanic and the Mystery Ship, p.100). Several researchers I have read believe it was stronger in that spring of 1912 running as fast as 1 knot (de Coverly even over 1 knot – 1992 Reappraisal). So I split the difference and used 0.75. That indeed would put the wreckage on a bearing of about SSE from the Californian’s 6:00 a.m. starting point. It would be 2 to 3 miles further SSE than my estimated meeting place of the Californian and the Carpathia. But since I am using a lot of estimates in these calculations these differences are really not that great. There is nothing wildly off.
The final conclusion is that the direct line distance from the Californian’s position at 6:00 a.m. to where she met the Carpathia at 8:30 a.m. is about 18 to 19 miles. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 70
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 6, 2006 - 3:03 am: |
|
Captain Lord testified in both the USA and England that the steamer he saw that night sometime before 11:00 p.m. stopped about 4 to 5 miles away. He was questioned in London if the ship he had seen might have been a big ship “a good deal further off?” Many other people have asked this question since 1912. Let us examine this question and other evidence from the night of April 12, 1912.
Captain Lord testified in London.
“6989. Does not it strike you now that that steamer you saw sending up rockets must have been the "Titanic"? - No.
6990. Not now? - No, I am positive it was not the "Titanic."
6991. Why are you positive it was not? - Because a ship like the "Titanic" at sea it is an utter impossibility for anyone to mistake.
6992. That must depend upon the distance you are from her? - Well, my distance, according to my estimate, is 4 to 5 miles.
6993. But might not she have been a good deal further off? - I do not think so. I do not think we would have seen her sidelights.
6994-5. Of course, if you saw her green light about 4 or 5 miles away, that would show to you that she must have been a pretty big ship, would it not? - It would not follow; there are so many steamers have electric lights now. You see sidelights a great deal further than you used to.
6996. If she was 4 or 5 miles away her light must have been at a high elevation from you, must it not, for you to see it? - A steamer something like ourselves, as I said before.
6997. I mean her sidelight must have been pretty high from the water if you could see it 4 to 5 miles distant? - The "Californian" is 40 feet above the water, and I said she was a steamer something like the "Californian."”
Captain Lord believed the steamer was only 4 to 5 miles off when she stopped.
Secondly, what is the latest time that Captain Lord definitely sighted the approaching steamer?
Wireless operator Cyril Evans testified in the USA.
“Senator SMITH. When did you next communicate with the Titanic and what was the message you sent or received?
Mr. EVANS. 9.05 New York time, sir.
Senator SMITH. What day?
Mr. EVANS. On the 14th, sir, the same evening, New York time, that is. I went outside of my room just before that, about five minutes before that and we were stopped, and I went to the captain and I asked him if there was anything the matter. The captain told me he was going to stop because of the ice, and the captain asked me if I had any boats, and I said the Titanic. He said "Better advise him we are surrounded by ice and stopped." So I went to my cabin, and at 9.05 New York time I called him up. I said "Say, old man, we are stopped and surrounded by ice." He turned around and said "Shut up, shut up, I am busy; I am working Cape Race," and at that I jammed him.”
Evans said he sent out the wireless message to warn the Titanic at 9.05 New York time. Evans stated ship’s time was 1 hour 55 minutes ahead of New York. He was ahead by 5 minutes too much.
“8935. I have no doubt he would let you have it. Perhaps, while they are getting it you can tell me this: What is the difference between New York time and ship's time at the place where you stopped? - One hour and fifty-five minutes.”
Captain Lord testified ship’s time was 1 hour 50 minutes ahead of New York time and that matches up with a noon longitude of 47 25 W.
“Mr. LORD. That would be 9.05 or 9.10. There is an hour and fifty minutes time between New York and my noon position on the 14th.”
Lord was not exactly sure when the wireless message was sent, but he clearly states the ship’s time was 1 hour and 50 minutes ahead of New York. Since Evans sent the message at 9.05 New York time, we know it was sent at 10:55 p.m. ship’s time.
Evans also had said he went out to see the Captain about 5 minutes previous to that. Lord had sighted the steamer approaching and then asked Evans what ships he had. Upon hearing “only the Titanic”, Lord instructed Evans to call her and warn her.
Lord was not in any doubt about seeing the approaching steamer, so we can safely conclude he sighted her at 10:50 p.m. at the latest.
The next question to be answered is when did the approaching steamer stop? Lord said she stopped about 11:30 p.m.
“6769. And did you tell him anything with regard to this vessel? - I told him to watch that steamer - that she was stopped.
6770. She was stopped? - The other steamer was stopped.
6771. When did you notice the other steamer was stopped? - About half-past 11.”
Groves said she stopped about 11:40 p.m.
“8217. (Mr. Rowlatt.) What makes you fix the time 11.40 for her lights going out? - Because that is the time we struck one bell to call the middle watch.
8218. Do you remember that bell was struck at that time? - Most certainly.
8219. Did the steamer continue on her course after that? - No, not so far as I could see.
8220. She stopped? - She stopped.
8221. Was that at the time when her lights appeared to go out? - That was at the time that her lights appeared to go out.”
Now we have Lord’s 10:50 p.m. sighting of the steamer as corroborated by Evans’s wireless message sent at 10:55 p.m. We also know the ship stopped at about 11:30 p.m. (Lord) or 11:40 p.m. (Groves). Thus we have either 40 or 50 minutes of steaming time between when the ship was sighted and stopped.
We know the speed of the Titanic was 22 knots. We know her course was S 86 W (266 degrees true). In forty minutes time the Titanic would cover just under 15 miles. In fifty minutes time she would cover just over 18 miles. We will round to the nearest mile because that is quite accurate enough for our purposes.
We also know the other ship bore SSE by compass (SE true) when she stopped. Second Officer Stone testified.
“7820. And how were they [lights] bearing from you at this time? - S.S.E. by the standard compass.”
Here is my analysis. I took a piece of graph paper using a scale of 8 miles to the inch, and marked the Californian’s position with a dot. I took a protractor and drew a line bearing SE (135 degrees true) from the Californian. I marked off points 5, 7, 10, 13, and 15 miles distant on this line. This indicates different distances of the ship from the Californian. I then took the protractor and drew lines from these five points on a bearing of N 86 E. This is the reciprocal bearing back to where the ship would have been earlier if she was steaming on a course of S 86 W. I marked points on these lines at 15 miles and 18 miles. If the approaching ship was the Titanic, then she would have been 15 miles back on one of these lines 40 minutes previous to stopping and 18 miles back 50 minutes previous to stopping. Next I measured the distance from the Californian to the point on each of these lines 15 miles and 18 miles back from the stopping point. This produces the following chart of how far the ship would be away in miles from the Californian. I rounded to the nearest half-mile.
Stop distance 40 minutes previous 50 minutes prev
5 miles, 19 miles, 22 miles
7 miles, 20.5 miles, 23 miles
10 miles, 23 miles, 25.5 miles
13 miles, 25.5 miles, 28.5 miles
15 miles, 27 miles, 30 miles
Now the Titanic’s masthead light would just begin to appear above the horizon about 22 miles away to an observer on the Californian’s bridge using the standard formula. But no ship’s officer at the time would ever testify that even a large ship could be seen at 22 miles away. Lord saw this light with his naked eye. From what I have read 12 to 13 miles is about the maximum distance a ship can be sighted at night with the naked eye.
The curvature of the earth eliminates the possibility that it was the Titanic stopped at a distance of 10, 13, or 15 miles from the Californian. If the stop distance was 7 miles and the ship stopped at 11:30 p.m. it could theoretically have been seen at 10:50 p.m., but it is extremely unlikely at 20.5 miles distance. Even if it had stopped only 5 miles away it is highly unlikely it would have been sighted even 40 minutes previously at a distance of 19 miles. But even if Captain Lord somehow managed to do it, would the Titanic stopped at only 5 or 7 miles distance really have been mistaken by Lord and Gibson for a medium size tramp and by Stone for a “smallish steamer”? It would have been ablaze with light as it steamed broadside to the Californian at such a close distance and approached its stop point as seen by Lord. And would not the distress rockets at just 5 or 7 miles distance have gone far higher than the masthead lights and been unmistakable? It is also likely that the detonations would have been heard.
Thus the ship seen by Lord could not have been a large ship seen at 10, 13, or 15 miles, as the curvature of the earth would cause even the masthead light to be below the horizon. And if it was the Titanic seen at ultra extreme range at 10:50 p.m. would she and her distress rockets been mistaken at only 5 to 7 miles distance?
Even Gibson thought he was seeing private signals.
“7696. Did you know when the rockets were being sent up that they were being sent up as danger signals? - No.
7697. What did you think they were sent up for? - I thought they were some private signals.
7698. Who told you they were private signals? - Nobody told me.
7699. Had you ever seen private signals of that kind? - No.
7700. And never heard of private signals of that kind? - I have heard of private rockets, private signal rockets.”
The reasonable conclusion is that the approaching steamer that then stopped was a medium size steamer as Lord and Gibson testified, or a small steamer as Stone testified.
Now if it was a medium size tramp steamer making 11 knots, she would cover 7.33 miles in forty minutes and slightly over 9 miles in fifty minutes. Thus 40 minutes before stopping she would have been about 11 ˝ miles away from the Californian. It is reasonable that Captain Lord would have just sighted her at this distance on a clear night.
Again my conclusion is that the nearby ship stopped about 5 miles away and was a medium size tramp that Lord first sighted about 11 ˝ miles away.
This issue is also covered in “Titanic and the Mystery Ship” on pages 64-65 and pages 263-268. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 6, 2006 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Of course Captain Moore disputes this. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 71
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 2:24 am: |
|
The Mount Temple and the Californian.
A number of writers have stated that Captain Moore “saw” the Californian as it was steaming east to west through the ice field only about 5 to 6 miles north of the Carpathia. I will now analyze this viewpoint.
Not everything is in chronological order in Captain Moore’s USA testimony, so one must carefully study it to construct the chronological sequence. According to his testimony, Captain Moore was called by the steward with a message from his wireless operator at about 12:30 a.m. ship’s time on April 15, 1912. The message said CQD, requires assistance, gave Titanic’s first position, come at once, iceberg. Moore turned his ship around to an initial course of N 45 E. As Moore was calculating his exact course to the CQD position, he received the Titanic’s second corrected CQD position and set his course for her at N 65 E true. He estimated the CQD position was 49 miles away.
At about 3:00 a.m. Mount Temple began to meet ice. Moore put the engines on standby while he detailed additional lookouts. He resumed steaming and then stopped his engines at 3:25 a.m. At that time he thought he was about 14 miles away from the CQD position. He then steamed slowly from that point. He believed he reached the Titanic’s CQD position about 4:30 a.m. Moore did not explain how he could cover 14 miles in 1 hour and 5 minutes when he wasn’t going full speed. Full speed was only 11˝ knots anyway. He “saw large ice pack right to the east of me, sir; right in my track.”
“We searched around to see if there was a clear place we could go through, because I feared the ice was too heavy for me to push through it. Of course, I reckoned I was somewhere near, if not at, the Titanic’s position that he gave me.” “I steered away to the south-southeast true, because I thought the ice appeared thinner down there.” Moore had also testified “in the morning when it got daylight”, he steamed south following the tramp steamer thinking perhaps there was a thin spot in the ice there. He steamed a little farther south than the tramp but found the ice “was getting far too heavy to put the ship through. But that would be about 5 or perhaps half past 5, in the morning.”
Moore turned around and steamed north again.
“Of course, it proved afterwards when, after coming southward and trying to find some place I could get through, on the way back again - I suppose about 6 o'clock in the morning - that I sighted the Carpathia on the other side of this great ice pack, and there is where I understand he picked up the boats. So this great pack of ice was between us and the Titanic's position.
Senator SMITH. As given by her?
Mr. MOORE. No, sir. I was in that position. I was to the eastward of the position the Titanic gave me, but she must have been to the eastward still, because she could not have been through this pack of ice.”
Notice that Moore does not testify that he “sighted the Carpathia” when he estimated he reached the CQD position. He also does not testify that he sighted her when he steamed southward. Captain Rostron of the Carpathia testified he saw two steamers 7 to 8 miles to the northward of him about 5:00 a.m. One was a four-master and quite likely the Mount Temple. It is “on the way back again - I suppose about 6 o'clock in the morning - that I sighted the Carpathia on the other side of this great ice pack, and there is where I understand he picked up the boats.” So Moore finally sights the Carpathia about 6:00 a.m. Mount Temple ever since 4:30 a.m. was probably never more than ten miles from the Carpathia, but it wasn’t until an hour after Rostron presumably sighted Mount Temple, that the Mount Temple finally sighted the Carpathia.
Please especially note that Moore uses the expression “sighted the Carpathia.”
On his return trip up to the north Moore had an officer take sun observations to determine the longitude.
“Mr. MOORE. Because when I got the position in the morning I got a prime vertical sight; that is a sight taken when the sun is bearing due east. That position gave me 50ş 9 1/2' west. I got two observations. I took one before the prime vertical and on the prime vertical. We were steering north at the time, steering north to go around this pack again, to look out, to see if we could find a hole through the ice, and we took these two positions, and they both came within a quarter of a mile of each other; so that the Titanic must have been on the other side of that field of ice, and then her position was not right which she gave.”
“Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir. My observation was this: My fourth officer took two observations, and of course, he is a navigator, and also, an extra master's certificate is held by him, which is a better certificate than mine, and he took those observations both times, and both of them tallied. One came 50ş 9 1/2' west and the other came 50ş 9 3/4'. “
“So this great pack of ice was between us and the Titanic’s position.
Senator Smith. “As given by her?”
Moore. “No, sir. I was in that position. I was to the eastward of the position the Titanic gave me, but she must have been to the eastward still, because she could not have been through this pack of ice.”
Senator SMITH. As I recollect, the captain of the Californian, who was sworn yesterday, and who went to the position given by the Titanic in the C. Q. D., also said that he found nothing there, but cruised around this position.
Mr. MOORE. I saw the Californian myself cruising around there, sir.”
Please note that the position that Moore “saw the Californian myself cruising around there, sir” refers to the CQD position, 41 46 N, 50 14 W. Moore mentions nothing here about seeing the Californian to the north. Again note that Moore uses the expression “saw the Californian myself cruising around there” (the CQD position). He is specifically testifying to a sighting.
The questioning continued in Washington, DC.
“Senator SMITH. She was there when you were there?
Mr. MOORE. She was there shortly after me, because when I came to this great pack of ice, sir, as I remarked, I went to the southeast to try to get around them because I realized that if he was not in that position - I had come from the westward - he must be somewhere to the eastward of me still. Of course, I had no idea that the Titanic had sunk. I had not the slightest idea of that.”
So Moore had returned north in the Mount Temple and shortly after he stopped, the Californian came by him. Both Captains believed they were close to the CQD (SOS) position. Recall that both Captain Lord and Third Officer Groves testified that the Mount Temple was stopped when Californian passed her.
“Moore. This pack of ice between us and the Carpathia, it was between 5 and 6 miles. She did not communicate with me at all. When we sighted her she must have sighted us.”
Notice Moore twice uses the term “sighted.” He "sighted" the Carpathia.
“Senator SMITH. On which side of the ice pack was the Californian?
Mr. MOORE. The Californian was to the north, sir. She was to the north of the Carpathia and steaming to the westward, because, after I had come away and after giving up my attempt to get through that pack, I came back again and steered back, thinking I might pick up some soft place to the north. As I was going to the north the Californian was passing from east to west.
Senator SMITH. And you were also cut off from the Carpathia by this ice pack?
Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir; by this ice pack. He was then north of the Carpathia, and he must have been, I suppose, about the same distance to the north of the Carpathia as I was to the westward of her.”
Now notice the change in Moore’s language here. He testifies, “he [Californian] must have been, I suppose, about the same distance to the north of the Carpathia as I was to the westward of her.”
He does not mention “sighting the Californian.” He does not mention “seeing the Californian” like he did in earlier testimony in regard to both the Carpathia and Californian [at the SOS position]. One cannot conclude there was a “sighting.” Moore does not testify he “sighted” the Californian. He only “supposes” the distance she was to the north of the Californian. This is a supposition, an assumption, and is no definite, or legal proof that Moore “sighted” the Californian about the same distance north of the Carpathia as he estimated the Mount Temple was west of her.
Here are some records from the radio log of the Mount Temple. I will put the Mount Temple’s time (1 hour 46 minutes ahead of the New York time) in brackets.
“3.25. [5:11 a.m.] Californian calls C.Q. I answer him and advise of Titanic and send him Titanic's position.
3.40. [5:26 a.m.] Californian working Frankfurt. Frankfurt sends him the same.
4.00. [5:46 a.m.] Californian working Virginian.
4.25. [6:11 a.m.] Californian working Birma.”
The Mount Temple’s wireless operator, John Durrant, may very well have informed Captain Moore that the Californian was now heading westward through the ice field on her way to the SOS position.
Or perhaps Captain Moore is just testifying what he learned later on that the Californian did. But there is no proof that he “sighted her” about the same distance north of the Carpathia as the Mount Temple was west of the Carpathia.
There is one other radio message I will now deal with.
“5.20. [7:06 a.m.] Signals Californian. Wants my position. Send it. We are very close.”
This would be 7:10 a.m. Californian time as her time was 4 minutes ahead of Mount Temple’s time. The Californian wants the Mount Temple’s position and the Mount Temple sends it. Durrant says the two ships are very close.
In previous posts, I quoted testimony that Captain Lord believed the Californian passed the Mount Temple “about 7:30 a.m.” If the time of the meeting was exact that would place the Californian 4.33 miles or 4.5 miles north of the Mount Temple at 7:10 a.m. if the Californian was steaming at 13 knots or 13 ˝ knots respectively. The two ships were certainly in sight of one another at that distance. I would call that “very close.” And if the Californian actually reached the Mount Temple at 7:25 a.m. then she would have only been slightly over 3 miles from the Mount Temple at 7:10 a.m. I’d certainly call that “very close.” I have written before that I believe these times could vary 5 minutes or so one way or the other.
Captain Moore testifies directly after the quote of the 5:20 a.m. wireless log.
“This is my ship and Californian, sir. When I get him to confirm my position, I ask him if he can give me his position. I understand he is cruising, because after we go up toward him he goes to the south and misses us, passes about a mile off, and then he gets where we came from. Then we go over the ground, and we have not seen anything of the ship, and we think we must cruise on farther.”
One certainly gets the impression that the Californian passed the Mount Temple after this exchange of radio messages. “I understand he [Californian] is cruising, because after we go up toward him he goes to the south and misses us, passes about a mile off.”
So the Mount Temple’s wireless operator stating the ships are very close at 7:10 a.m. Californian time is quite reasonable. Four miles or so off is “very close” and somewhere around 7:30 a.m. the Californian steams on by the Mount Temple.
The final conclusion is that there is no proof Captain Moore sighted the Californian as she steamed east to west across the ice field. There is no proof that Captain Moore sighted the Californian only about 6 miles north of the Carpathia.
In one of my previous posts I explain why I believe the Californian at 6:00 a.m. was about 18 to 19 miles distant on a direct bearing from where she met the Carpathia at 8:30 a.m. The north-south component of this distance would be about 15 miles.
“Titanic and the Mystery Ship” covers similar material on pages 206-211. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1269
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 3:21 am: |
|
Hi Paul S. I’d like to focus in on something you wrote a few posts back. I'll deal with some of the other things you posted recently in separate postings.
Your words were: "Lord was not in any doubt about seeing the approaching steamer, so we can safely conclude he sighted her at 10:50 p.m. at the latest." You also said, "Now we have Lord’s 10:50 p.m. sighting of the steamer as corroborated by Evans’s wireless message sent at 10:55 p.m."
I strongly disagree with this. There is no corroboration from Evans at all. Let's put up what Lord and Evans said on this in there entirety at both the American and British inquiries.
First Lord at the American inquiry:
quote:Lord: When I came of the bridge, at half past 10, I pointed out to the officer that I thought I saw a light coming along, and it was a most peculiar light, and we had been making mistakes all along with the stars, thinking they were signals. We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm. He said he thought it was a star, and I did not say anything more. I went down below. I was talking with the engineer about keeping the steam ready, and we saw these signals coming along, and I said "There is a steamer passing. Let us go to the wireless and see what the news is." But on our way down I met the operator coming, and I said, "Do you know anything?" He said, "The Titanic." So, then, I gave him instructions to let the Titanic know. I said, "This is not the Titanic; there is no doubt about it."
Now Lord at the British inquiry:
quote: 6715. Now close upon 11 o’clock did you see a steamer’s light? - [Lord] I did.
The Commissioner: 11 o’clock when?
The Attorney-General: At night, my Lord.
The Commissioner: This was on Sunday night?
6716. (The Attorney-General.) Yes. (To the Witness.). This was on Sunday night that you had stopped? - After we had stopped.
6717. And you saw a steamer’s light. Was it approaching you? - It was approaching me from the eastward.
6718. How did it bear? - I did not get the bearings of it; I was just noticing it casually from the deck.
6719. Where was it? On your quarter? - It was on the starboard side.
6720. What did you see - what light? - I just saw a white light to commence with.
6721. Did you then ask your wireless operator what ships he had? - Yes, I went to his room and I asked him what ships he had.
6722. That means from what ships he had had messages? - What ships he had been in communication with.
6723. What did he say? - “Nothing, only the ‘Titanic.’”
6724. Did you think that the vessel approaching you was the “Titanic”? - No, I remarked at the time that was not the “Titanic.” ...
6737. (The Attorney-General.) You said it was not the “Titanic.” Did you give him any directions? Did you tell him to let the “Titanic” know? - I said, “Let the ‘Titanic’ know that we are stopped, surrounded by ice.”
6738. Do you remember at what time that message was sent? - About 11 o’clock.
6739. About 11 o’clock that night, ship’s time? - Ship’s time.
Now here is Evans at the American inquiry:
quote:Mr. EVANS. On the 14th, sir, the same evening, New York time, that is. I went outside of my room just before that, about five minutes before that and we were stopped, and I went to the captain and I asked him if there was anything the matter. The captain told me he was going to stop because of the ice, and the captain asked me if I had any boats, and I said the Titanic. He said "Better advise him we are surrounded by ice and stopped." So I went to my cabin, and at 9.05 New York time I called him up. I said "Say, old man, we are stopped and surrounded by ice." He turned around and said "Shut up, shut up, I am busy; I am working Cape Race," and at that I jammed him.
And Evans at the British inquiry:
quote:8975. There is nothing more, as I follow you, until your ship stops? - No.
8976. Which we know she did, about 10.25 - your ship’s time? - Yes.
8977. Did you go on deck when you found the ship had stopped? - Yes.
8978. I think you found the Captain and the Chief Engineer discussing the matter? - Yes.
8979. And then did the Captain make a communication to you and ask you to do something? - Well, Sir, he was talking about the ice then; he was talking to the Chief Officer. I asked him if anything was the matter, and if he wanted me. A little after that he came along to my cabin to talk to me.
8980. What did he want to know? - He asked me what ships I had got.
8981. That means, what ships you were in touch with? - In communication with.
8982. What did you say? - I said, “I think the ‘Titanic’ is near us. I have got her.”
8983. Did you say “I think the ‘Titanic’ is near us” or “is nearest”? - Near us.
8984. (The Commissioner.) “Nearer” is it you are saying? - She was “near us.”
8985. (The Solicitor-General.) As far as you know, was there any ship with Marconi apparatus that was nearer you at this time than the “Titanic”? - Not as far as I know. I had not the “Titanic’s” position.
8986. (The Commissioner.) What time was this - about what time? - Five minutes to eleven.
8987. (The Solicitor-General.) Ship’s time? - Yes.
8988. What did the Captain say when you said that? - He said, “You had better advise the ‘Titanic’ we are stopped and surrounded by ice.”
8989. Did you call up the “Titanic”? - Yes.
8990. Can you give me the time? - It was 9.5 p.m. [read as 9:05 pm]
Now are these two people really saying the same thing? Evans says his ship was stopped and that he went to Lord and found him talking to the C/E concerning the ship being stopped and surrounded by ice. No mention of any steamer coming along at all. He asked Lord if there anything he wanted of him and Lord had asked him if he had any ships nearby. Evans said he had the Titanic near and Lord instructed him to tell them that they were stopped and surrounded by ice. No mention by Evans in either inquiry about an approaching steamer, to say nothing of Lord's insistence that he told him that "This is not the Titanic; there is no doubt about it."
I would think that if Lord saw that steamer approach at the time he said he did he would not just ask Evans what ships he had, but would have said 'there is a steamer approaching us, what ships do you have?' And I would think that Evans would have mentioned that detail in at least one if not both inquiries. Following Evens’ story, it was very clear what had gone on. Their ship was stopped. Lord asked Evans a questions about what ships he had within wireless range so that he could warn them that an extensive ice field lay in their path which forced him to stop for the night. There was no need to have a ship in sight for Lord to have taken that precaution.
The only other evidence of an approaching steamer being seen comes from 3/O Groves. It was about 11:10-11:15 when he noticed a light coming up over the horizon. He didn't pay much attention to it at first thinking it a rising star, but by 11:30 he said he went down to report to Lord on the lower bridge, that a ship was then coming up in their direction from what seemed to be aft of their starboard beam. At that time they were pointing NE by compass. Groves was then instructed to try and call her up on the Morse lamp. After coming back up to the upper bridge Grove noticed the ship had stopped and appeared to shut out her lights. That was at 11:40, a time marked by the striking of one bell to inform the oncoming watch to get ready to come up soon. That he saw the ship stopped at that time is confirmed by Stone who also mentions the correlation with one bell being struck as told to him by Groves. According to Groves, Lord came up to the upper bridge about 11:45 to look at the steamer for himself when the two had another conversation. We all know that Groves said he saw two mast lights and said he thought the steamer was a passenger ship. Some people have suggested that he made that up at the time of the inquiry trying to link this steamer with the Titanic. We know Lord, Stone and Gibson only saw one mast light. Yet apparently Groves did believe he saw two mast lights well before either inquiry because Lord himself testified that he was told by Groves that he thought he saw two mast lights.
6808. (The Attorney-General - To the Witness.) When was it the third officer told you he had seen the two lights? - [Lord] Before 12 o’clock.
6809. Before 12 o’clock? - Before midnight. At the time I saw one, he saw two.
6810. Were you on deck when he told you this? - He told me the following day, I think; I do not think it was mentioned that night.
6811. He told you next day he had seen two white lights when on deck about 12 o’clock? - Yes, two masthead lights.
6812. Is the third officer still in the ship? - Yes.
6813. Will you tell me his name? - Mr. Groves.
And then continuing on this,
6824. (The Commissioner.) Has the third officer ever expressed any opinion to you that it was the “Titanic” he saw? - No, my Lord.
6825. Never? - Never.
6826. (The Attorney-General.) I must put this to you. Do you remember about a quarter-past 11 on that night, that is the night of the 14th, his telling you that he had noticed a steamer - that is, the third officer, Mr. Groves? - No, I do not.
6827. A steamer about three points abaft the starboard beam, 10 to 12 miles away? - No, I do not.
6828. Did you ask about her lights? - Not then.
6829. At any time? - No. A quarter to 12 was the first time I ever mentioned anything to him about the steamer, that I recollect.
So here Lord remembers having a conversation with Groves at about 11:45, the same time that Groves said he came up to the upper bridge.
6830. Did he say to you that she was evidently a passenger steamer? - No.
6831. And did you say to him, “The only passenger steamer near us is the “Titanic”? - I might have said that with regard to the steamer, but he did not say the steamer was a passenger steamer.
Now this point is very revealing to me. Why would Lord mention anything about the Titanic being the only passenger steamer that would be near to them (i.e., within relatively close communications distance) to Groves? What prompted this?
6832. You might have said what? - The “Titanic.”
6833. What about the “Titanic”? - The “Titanic” we were in communication with.
Even the Attorney-General did not expect this response. Such a response makes sense only if Groves told Lord that he thought it was a passenger ship that approached and put her lights out. When Lord was looking at the lights of the ship at that time, now about 11:45, it had the appearance of a tramp steamer about 5 miles off. According to Groves, lord told him that he (Lord) didn’t think it was a passenger steamer, which to me makes sense given what he was seeing at that time. Lord, however, said that Groves never mentioned anything about a passenger steamer to him (6830). However, that does not seem to be the case.
6835. (The Commissioner.) You said, according to your statement, “The ‘Titanic’ is the only passenger steamer near us.” You said that to him? - She was.
6836. But you said it to him? - I do not recollect saying it.
6837. You have just told me you did say it. Do collect your mind. Did you say it? - I do not recollect saying it.
So now Lord takes it all back. First he might have said something about it, but now he doesn't remember saying anything about it. They call that backpedaling.
The questions I have are these. Did Lord actually see this steamer approach and when? Was it Groves who actually saw the steamer before anyone else and reported to Lord per standing instructions at about 11:30 as he said? Did Groves mention to Lord that he thought the steamer was a passenger ship carrying 2 mast lights in that meeting? Remember Lord's first response to the question about when was it that two mast lights were mentioned (6808-6809), "When was it the third officer told you he had seen the two lights?" Lord: "Before 12 o’clock...Before midnight. At the time I saw one, he saw two." He immediately backpedaled on this question as well because the next thing he said (6810), "He told me the following day, I think; I do not think it was mentioned that night."
By the way, the Titanic had but one mast light, something the Wreck Commission interrogators apparently were not aware of. They assumed it had two. They also took Grove’s 11:40 time as a confirmation that it was the Titanic that he must have seen turning trying to avoid the iceberg it collided with. They therefore took Titanic time as equal to Californian time, because they had evidence that the titanic struck the berg at 11:40. The time issue is another topic for discussion at some other time, but the two were not the same although they were within a few minutes of each other.
Some authors have claimed that Groves had an agenda against Lord, and it may very well be that it turned out that way. But Lord had an agenda too. It was to put as much distance between his ship and the Titanic, both physically and figuratively. By the time he gave testimony at both inquiries, I believe Lord had suspected that the rockets seen during the middle watch by Stone and Gibson may have indeed come from the Titanic (which we know today was most likely the case). Yet the world by then knew that his ship saw rockets that night and stood still. It is easy to see why he was so insistent in saying that he had told Evans "This is not the Titanic; there is no doubt about it," even though Evans said nothing about a ship approaching.
More to come.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1649
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 8:26 am: |
|
Hi Sam, I can't find the posting now, but didn't you do some analysis based on trigonometry last year proving that Captain Lord couldn't have seen a ship at 10.50pm, as she would have been well over the horizon? |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1271
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
You may be right Paul. I looked at many things things over a year ago and since. What I do know is that Lord mentioned seeing a light coming up as early as 10:30 and pointing it out to Groves (Amer. Inq.), whereupon Grove said he thought it was just a rising star. If this were the mastlight of a tramp mystery ship heading west coming up over the horizon at that time, then it would have been about 19 miles off assuming a typical masthead light height of 90 ft (about the foremast light height of the Californian I believe) seen from a height of eye of 45 ft. If it stopped at 11:30 PM, SE true and 5 miles away from the Californian, then it had to run 13 miles in an hours time. Now of course this fits with the story being told here of an approaching tramp steamer. But if true, it also shows that lights coming up over the horizon can be seen as far as 19 miles off. It also means that if the distance between Titanic and the California were at that distance or even somewhat less, then both of the Californian's masthead lights should have easily been seen from Titanic's bridge from a height of eye of 65 ft after the Californian swung around enough for those lights to be seen; i.e., about 12:15 AM her time and after.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1272
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Paul. Looking back I believe I might have showed that if it were the Titanic approaching, the earliest it could have been seen coming up over the horizon from the Californian's bridge would be about 11:10 if it came to a stop SE true and about 12 miles away from the Californian. If that were the case, then that result would tend to match fairly well with what Groves said. I'll have to go back and find some detailed notes I took on this subject.
I'm going away for the weekend and will likely be out of touch with the electronic world for the next dew days. I'll see what I can find when I get back.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Paul S. You said: "At about 3:00 a.m. Mount Temple began to meet ice. Moore put the engines on standby while he detailed additional lookouts."
Not exactly. Moore did not stop his engines at that time, he telegraphed to the engine room to stand by the engines. This is telling them to possibly expect some maneuvering orders and to be ready to carry them out immediately like having to reverse the engines. It's not the same as going to stop.
At 3:25 he estimated he was 14 miles from the Boxhall coordinates by DR. His assumed speed was closer to 12 knots because he allowed about a 1/2 knot extra for an easterly Gulf Stream which was the assumed average for that area.
The time that Moore turned his ship around to head for the Boxhall location was logged at 10:40 PM NY time (about 12:25 AM MT time) Durrant’s PV.
In the 3 hours of steaming to 3:25 he covered 35 miles out of the 49 leaving a difference of 14 just as he said. His reference to being at the position when he stooped at about 4:30 is quite easy to figure out. That was his expected time of arrival at the CQD location running at 12 knots and that is what he recalled. At 3:25 he stopped his engines to take some of way off the ship and proceeded more slowly from that point on. he did not come to stop then. He continued on at some reduced speed until he was forced to stop because of thick ice ahead. He said it was 4:30 but he was remembering his ETA time, not the actual time he stopped. A more exact stopping time can be obtained from Durrant's PV.
"3.00. All quiet. We are stopped amongst pack ice." That was NY time. That means they probably stopped engines about 4:45 AM Mount Temple time when that event was logged.
It is clear that Moore went slowly for the last hour and 20 minutes. I doubt he only slowed to 10.5 knots and covered the last 14 miles. He stopped at 4:45 because of the pack ice. he knew he didn't quite make it to the Titanic position because he was forced to stop. That is why he was trying to get around the pack ice when it started to get light 20 minutes later.
That is when they backed out of the ice and headed southward. It was just after the beginning of civil twilight.
Why Moore said he was close to the position at when he stopped was the confusion created when he took that Prime Vertical sight close about 6:50 ATS. That showed him about 3.5 miles east of the Boxhall longitude. Adding the thickness of the ice field, he estimated the Titanic had to have gone down at least 8 miles east of Boxhall's position. And today we know he was right.
You also wrote: "Moore had also testified 'in the morning when it got daylight', he steamed south following the tramp steamer thinking perhaps there was a thin spot in the ice there. He steamed a little farther south than the tramp but found the ice 'was getting far too heavy to put the ship through. But that would be about 5 or perhaps half past 5, in the morning.'” Actually, it would be about 5:05 MT time, corresponding to 3:20 NY (which was logged in Durrant's PV) as the time they backed out of the ice and first headed south. This is also about the time Rostrom said he notice those two steamers to the northward of him about 7-8 miles off. The small two masted tramp steamer with the black funnel was ahead and to south of the MT as they approached the western edge of the ice pack. Moore said he had this small tramp in sight all the time untill 9 AM, so it was never too far away. After backing out of the ice, the MT followed down southward to where the samll tramp stopped and continued just a bit further before turning around. The time she turned around would have to be sometime after 5:30 because around 6 AM she was headed back northward and saw the Californian crossing the ice heading westward. We know the Californian was moving across 2-3 miles of ice between 6:00 and 6:30 AM.
Now Paul also said,
quote:Now notice the change in Moore’s language here. He testifies, “he [Californian] must have been, I suppose, about the same distance to the north of the Carpathia as I was to the westward of her.” He does not mention “sighting the Californian.” He does not mention “seeing the Californian” like he did in earlier testimony in regard to both the Carpathia and Californian [at the SOS position]. One cannot conclude there was a “sighting.” Moore does not testify he “sighted” the Californian. He only “supposes” the distance she was to the north of the Californian. This is a supposition, an assumption, and is no definite, or legal proof that Moore “sighted” the Californian about the same distance north of the Carpathia as he estimated the Mount Temple was west of her.
This is the kind of logic I have come to expect from Senan. Moore was quite specific about what he saw and when he saw it. "The Californian was to the north, sir. She was to the north of the Carpathia and steaming to the westward, because ... as I was going to the north the Californian was passing from east to west." That is clearly a sighting my friend. He doesn't have to use the word "sighted" to convey that he actually was seeing this. His description of the distances was an honest estimate of what he had seen. “He was then north of the Carpathia, and he must have been, I suppose, about the same distance to the north of the Carpathia as I was to the westward of her.” The use of the words "I suppose" was an interjection of a minor statement that he was about to give a subjective estimate. It is no different than someone coming up to me and asking, "what time did you leave the office last Monday?" and I reply, "I suppose it must have been after 6 PM." Should they then conclude that I may not have been in my office because I responded by saying "I suppose it must have been?"
You then bring up a some suppositions of your own, "The Mount Temple’s wireless operator, John Durrant, may very well have informed Captain Moore that the Californian was now heading westward through the ice field on her way to the SOS position. Or perhaps Captain Moore is just testifying what he learned later on that the Californian did." Quite frankly, I find this kind of reasoning a rediculous tactic to discredit his testimony.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 179
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Have a good trip, Sam - hope all this milarkey with the airlines isn't going to spoil it.
Warmest regards
dave |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 72
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 2:31 am: |
|
Captain Lord testified before Wireless Operator Evans at the US Inquiry. Evans was present as pointed out by Lord. Thus Evans heard Captain Lord testify before he testified.
Lord said,
"I went down below. I was talking with the engineer about keeping the steam ready, and we saw these signals coming along, and I said "There is a steamer passing. Let us go to the wireless and see what the news is." But on our way down I met the operator coming, and I said, "Do you know anything?" He said, "The Titanic."
So, then, I gave him instructions to let the Titanic know. I said, "This is not the Titanic; there is no doubt about it.""
Evans heard Lord testify this in the USA. He did not at any point in his immediately following testimony deny this course of events.
Lord testified in London,
"6719. Where was it? On your quarter? - It was on the starboard side.
6720. What did you see - what light? - I just saw a white light to commence with.
6721. Did you then ask your wireless operator what ships he had? - Yes, I went to his room and I asked him what ships he had.
6722. That means from what ships he had had messages? - What ships he had been in communication with.
6723. What did he say? - "Nothing, only the 'Titanic.'"
6724. Did you think that the vessel approaching you was the "Titanic"? - No, I remarked at the time that was not the "Titanic."
6725. How could you tell that? - You can never mistake those ships - by the blaze of light."
The Californian witnesses were still in the courtroom at this time, so Evans heard this also. He did not contradict it in his testimony.
Evans had two opportunities to refute what Lord said. Evans did not do so. Lord sighted the approaching ship. He wanted to warn any ships nearby with wireless. It makes perfect sense that he would then go and inquire from Evans. We know Evans sent out his message at 10:55 p.m. ship's time. I'm satisfied it all occurred just as Lord testified. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 73
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 2:49 am: |
|
Now on to the Mount Temple. First, I did a little more research on engine telegraphs and agree with you. When Moore said, "We only had the engines at 'stand by' that means be ready for a change. She did not slow down. 35 miles in 3 hours seems reasonable.
The point I was making had reference to making 14 miles in 1 hour and 5 minutes. Moore said "At 3.25 I stopped the engines, and then went slowly to avoid the ice, because it was too dark to proceed full speed on account of the ice." "I reached the Titanic's position. I reckon I was very close to that position, either that position or very close to it, at 4.30 in the morning, sir."
As far as I know, Captain Moore made an honest mistake.
"3.00. All quiet. We are stopped amongst pack ice. That is, our ship, the Mount Temple is stopped amongst the pack ice."
"are stopped" and "is stopped" are both a present state of being. That describes what the state of the ship was at 3.00 NY, 4.46 ship's. That doesn't necessarily mean it stopped right at that moment. If I say, we are stopped in a traffic jam at 3:00 p.m., that doesn't mean necessarily the traffic jam started at 3:00 p.m. It means, "right now at 3:00 p.m. I am stopped in a traffic jam." I am going to stay with the normal meaning of the English language. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 74
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 3:29 am: |
|
I completely believe Captain Moore's was seeking to be accurate in his testimony "He [Californian]was then north of the Carpathia, and he must have been, I suppose, about the same distance to the north of the Carpathia as I was to the westward of her." The man gave an honest estimate, and I believe he made an honest mistake. He was human.
Captain Moore was quite specific in stating he "sighted" the Carpathia, or "saw" the Californian at the SOS position. I believe his use of the language here was quite deliberate. I disagree with Sam.
Moore also testified,
"Of course, it proved afterwards when, after coming southward and trying to find some place I could get through, on the way back again - I suppose about 6 o'clock in the morning - that I sighted the Carpathia on the other side of the great ice pack."
Here Captain Moore is giving an estimate, an approximate time for when he first sighted the Carpathia - 6:00 a.m.
Now the Californian was passing through the ice field from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. proceeding west or a little south of west. So Sam's interpretation is that Moore "sighted" her during this east to west passage.
Captain Moore is quoted in the April 26, 1912 Evening Times and Star, of St. John, New Brunswick.
"We could see the Carpathia on the other side of the floe and later the Californian and one or two other liners."
We know Captain Moore sighted the Carpathia at around 6:00 a.m. Some have speculated he sighted the Californian at about the same time heading west across the ice field. Yet here Captain Moore is quoted on April 26 as saying he saw the Californian "later" and one or two other liners.
In the US Moore testified, "About 8 o'clock we sighted the Birma." Moore associates the "later" sighting of the Californian with sighting the Birma at 8:00 a.m. Now if he first sighted the Californian around 7:00 a.m. as she was steaming south to pass Mount Temple about 7:30 a.m., what he said in St. John, New Brunswick makes perfect sense. Moore uses the definite term "later" to convey a considerable time interval from his estimated 6:00 a.m. sighting of the Carpathia until his "later" sighting of the Californian .
I stand by what I wrote earlier. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 75
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 3:35 am: |
|
"Mount Temple and Titanic, Murmurs and Misadventure", by Senan Molony, p 23. was the source of the quote from the April 26, 1912 Evening Times and Star, of St. John, New Brunswick. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 76
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 3:49 am: |
|
When conducting historical analysis there are two kinds of spoken or written testimony. There is direct first person testimony and hearsay. First person testimony is what the person himself says or writes. Hearsay is one witness testifying what another person said. Hearsay is not admitted in a criminal or civil court unless there is a second witness to corroborate it.
The US and British Inquiries were not this formal. They did not object outright to hearsay, but accepted at least some of it. Hearsay is not necessarily false. A witness may do his best to recall what someone else said. But if direct first person testimony contradicts what a witness giving hearsay testifies, the first person testimony should take precedence.
I am now following up on what I posted previously about how difficult it is to see ship’s masthead lights at night beyond 12 miles.
Apprentice James Gibson wrote on April 18, 1912.
“At about 3.20 looking over the weather-cloth, I observed a rocket abut two points before the beam (port) which I reported to the Second Officer. About three minutes later I saw another rocket right abeam which was followed later by another one about two points before the beam.”
James Gibson had no doubt that he saw rockets from about 3:20 a.m. until 3:30 a.m. He did not write he thought he saw a ship’s lights.
Here is an extract from Gibson’s testimony in London.
“7578. Did anything happen after that? - Yes.
7579. What? - I saw three more rockets, Sir.
7580. How much after? - That was about twenty minutes to four.
7581. Just about the same time? - Yes.
7582. These further rockets that you saw, were they before or after the Second Officer had telephoned to the Captain? - After.
7583. Just think for a moment. You are sure about the time, are you? - Not exactly, Sir.
7584. But you have said 3.40 - twenty minutes to four? - Yes.
7585. Are you sure you mean that? - Yes.”
…..
“7586. (The Commissioner.) Now, am I to understand you to say that at twenty minutes to four the same morning you saw three more rockets? - Yes, Sir.
7587. Were they reported to the Captain? - I reported them to the Second Officer.
7588. Did he report them to the Captain? - No.
7589. Why not? - I do not know.
7590. If they were really there, why were not they reported to the Captain? - I do not know, Sir.
7591. Are you quite sure that these three rockets were ever seen by you at all? - Yes, Sir. I saw the first one, and I reported it to the Second Officer, and we looked out for more to see if we could see any more - and we saw two more.”
Gibson repeatedly calls the lights he saw rockets.
“7592. (The Solicitor-General.) You say you saw the first one? - Yes.
7593. Do you mean you saw it with your naked eye? - Yes.
The Commissioner: Did any of the boats of the "Titanic" fire Roman candles?
7594. (The Solicitor-General.) Yes, my Lord, Roman candles. (To the Witness.) If it was twenty minutes to four it was not very far off the beginning of dawn, was it? - No, dawn was just breaking.
7595. Had it got any lighter? - Yes.
7596. Could you see when you saw this flash at all how far away you thought it was? - It was right on the horizon.
7597. What sort of a light was it? You called it a rocket? Was it a flash; did you see it go up into the sky? - Yes.”
Gibson also agrees what he saw was a flash. A ship’s light is constant. It is not a flash.
“7598. What colour was it? - White.”
7599. And you called Mr. Stone's attention to it, did you, and then there were two more seen? - Yes.
7600. I understand that is after Mr. Stone had spoken on the tube to the Captain? - Yes.
7601. Do you say he did not report these three further lights to the captain at all? - No.
7602. When you saw these three further lights did you get your glasses on to the place? - Yes.
7603. Could you see any sign of a ship? - No.
7604. No sign of a masthead light? - No.
7605. No sign of a sidelight? - No.
7606. Nothing except these flashes? - That is all.
7607. Is that right? - Yes.
7608. Then I think you went off your watch at four o'clock? - A quarter to.”
After Gibson sees the three rockets it is about 3:30 a.m. He looks at the place where they came from with binoculars (glasses). He sees no ship. He sees no masthead light. He sees no sidelight. All he saw were “flashes.” A ship’s light is not a flash as it is steady.
Thirty minutes later Chief Officer Stewart sees a ship’s lights. She bears about south and in the daylight Captain Lord estimates she is about 8 miles off. If she was steaming west at 11 knots, 30 minutes earlier at 3:30 a.m. she would have been bearing about SSE a little over 9 miles away.
Yet when Gibson is looking in this general area at 3:30 a.m. even with his binoculars he sees no sign of a ship’s light. The point I was making is that it is not that easy to pick out a ship’s light even at 9 miles away.
Second Officer Herbert Stone wrote on April 18, 1912.
“We saw nothing further until about 3.20 when we thought we observed two faint lights in the sky about SSW and a little distance apart. At 3.40 I sent Gibson down to see all was ready for me to prepare the now log at eight bells.
The Chief Officer, Mr. Stewart, came on the bridge at 4 am and I gave him a full report of what I had seen and my reports and replies from you, and pointed out where I thought I had observed these faint lights at 3.20.
He picked up the binoculars and said after a few moments: ‘There she is then, she’s all right, she is a four-master.’ I said: “Then that isn’t the steamer I saw first,” took up the glasses and just made out a four-master steamer with two masthead lights a little abaft our port beam, and bearing about S, we were heading about WNW.”
Stone is referring to the faint lights that he and Gibson saw previously. Gibson had no doubt they were rockets. Even with the binoculars Stone ‘just made out a four-master steamer with two masthead lights” which was only about 8 miles away.
Here is an extract from Stone’s testimony in London.
“8007. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) After this conversation with the Captain through the tube, did you later see anything more? - Yes.
8008. What did you do? - At about 3.20, just before half-past three, as near as I can approximate, Gibson reported to me he had seen a white light in the sky to the southward of us, just about on the port beam. We were heading about west at the time. I crossed over to the port wing of the bridge and watched its direction with my binoculars. Shortly after, I saw a white light in the sky right dead on the beam.
8009. (The Commissioner.) How far away? - At a very great distance I should judge.
8010. What do you mean by a very great distance? - Such a distance that if it had been much further I should have seen no light at all, merely a faint flash.
8011. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Was it the same character of light as the rockets, or something quite different? - It was so far away that it was impossible to judge.
8012. Did you think it could have come from the steamer you had been looking at before? - No.
8013. It was something different, you think? - Yes, because it was not on the same bearing, unless the steamer had turned round.
The Commissioner: And were these lights rockets? - I think not.
8014. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Did anything further happen between that time and the end of your watch? - Nothing further.
Now Stone thought the light “was at a very great distance.” He did not think it was a rocket. But he said “Such a distance that if it had been much further I should have seen no light at all, merely a faint flash.” A steamer’s masthead light would not make a “faint flash.” A masthead light would be constant. Stone does not indicate it was a constant light. He was using binoculars and never stated it was a ship’s light he saw around 3:30 a.m.
“8015. Your watch ended at 4? - Yes.
8016. At 4 did you see the navigation lights of a steamer? - After 4 o'clock.
8017. When after 4? - Just after 4 o'clock - a few minutes possibly. The Chief Officer relieved me. I gave him a full report of everything I had seen and everything I had reported to the Master, his instructions, when the steamer disappeared, and the way she was bearing - the whole information regarding the watch. He looked over on the port beam, and he remarked to me, "There she is; there is that steamer; she is all right." I looked at the steamer through the glasses, and I remarked to him "That is not the same steamer; she has two masthead lights." I saw a steamer then just abaft the port beam showing two masthead lights apparently heading much in the same direction as ourselves.
8018. Do you know what that steamer was? - No.
8019. That could not have been the steamer you have been telling us about I suppose? - I should say not.”
Stone does not observe the steamer 8 miles away until Stewart points it out to him. The light from a ship was not obvious even at 8 miles.
Here is an extract from Chief Officer Stewart’s testimony.
“8595. At 4 o'clock - of course it was still dark - did you take the glasses and scan the surrounding water? - Yes.
8596. Did you see anything? - Yes, I saw a steamer to the southward.
8597. At 4 o'clock in the morning? - Yes.
8598. What was it you saw at 4 o'clock in the morning? - I saw two white masthead lights and a few lights amidships.
8599. Did you ask Mr. Stone whether this steamer you saw then was the one he had seen? - Yes.
8600. You did? - Yes, I did, and he said he had not seen that steamer before.
8601. So that, according to him, it was not the same steamer? - Well, he did not know; he said he had never seen that steamer till I pointed it out to him.”
Here Stewart speaks of seeing the steamer after he took up the binoculars (glasses).
“8612. (The Commissioner.) Now read it aloud.
The Witness: "I looked to the southward and saw a light. On looking through the glass I saw two masthead lights and a lot of lights amidships, apparently a four-masted steamer. This was 4 a.m. I asked Stone if he thought this was the ship he had seen, and he said he did not think it was."”
Here Stewart is reading from his statement to the receiver of wrecks. He saw a single light with the naked eye. Then with the binoculars he saw the two masthead lights. So Stewart does testify he first saw a ship’s light with the naked eye at what later proved to be about 8 miles.
Sam Halpern is correct in pointing out that Stewart saw a single light with his naked eye. I was in error on that point.
“8886. Did you ask him whether he had seen anything else? - He said he thought there was a light to southward about 20 minutes to 4.
8887. And when he stated that, what did you do, if anything? - I looked and I could see a light to the southward.
8888. What was the vessel which was showing the light which you saw to the southward at 20 minutes to 4? - I saw the lights at 4 o'clock. She had two masthead lights and a few lights amidships.
8889. That was the light which the Second Officer, as I understand, had told you he thought he saw - the light to the southward at 20 minutes to 4? - Yes.
8890. He told you that at 4 o'clock, and then you say you looked at it and you picked up the light? - Yes.
8891. Was that the light of this four-masted one funnel steamer which you afterwards saw at daylight? - Yes.
8892-3. Did you draw the attention of the Second Officer to that light? - Yes.
The Commissioner: Now, Mr. Dunlop, do get on.
8894. (Mr. Dunlop.) And it was then that there was some discussion as to whether that was the vessel that had been exhibiting the rockets which he had seen during the middle watch? - Yes.
8895. Did he say whether he had seen this vessel before or not? - He said he had not seen that ship before.”
Now recall what I wrote about first person testimony vs. hearsay at the beginning. Gibson definitely thought the lights seen at 3:20 a.m. and after were rockets. Stone said he did not think they were rockets, but on the other hand said if it had been any further away it would have been just a faint flash. A ship’s light does not make a faint flash. Stone never said specifically he thought he saw a ship’s light. That is Stewart’s interpretation of what Stone meant. Stone’s first person testimony is to be given precedence over Stewart’s hearsay testimony of what he thought Stone meant. Stewart drew a conclusion he was not entitled to make about Stone’s words.
If the two lights Stone saw weren’t rockets, then Stone did not see the Carpathia’s rockets. And if that is so, then the Carpathia was even further away than the 18 to 19 miles I calculated from the Californian's start position at 6:00 a.m. to where she met Carpathia at 8:30 a.m.
Gibson on the other hand had no doubt they were rockets he saw.
Now to return to my original point and conclude. My position is that the Californian saw a nearby steamer about 5 miles away. The Titanic was about 18 miles away on the same bearing. Thus the nearby steamer was about 13 miles from the Titanic. 13 miles is a long way off to pick up a steamer’s light, and I don’t think it is unreasonable at all that no one on the Titanic saw it. Or if anyone did, no one concluded it was a steamer’s light.
Neither Gibson nor Stone picked up a ship’s light that was about 9 to 10 miles away when Gibson left the bridge, and about 8 miles away when Stone’s watch ended. Stewart did pick it up at 8 miles, but that is a large difference from 13 miles away. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 77
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 3:52 am: |
|
I'll be out of town for a couple of days. I am working on an analysis of Groves' testimony about the ship he first sighted at 11:10 pm on April 14, 1912. |
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 180
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 10:09 am: |
|
You have a nice time, too, Paul - and again, I hope all this airport disruption doesn't spoil it.
warmest regards
dave |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1277
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 12:49 am: |
|
Thanks Dave for the kind words. I've made it back safely, and the expected airport delays were not at all as bad as what the media is trying to sell, at least not at the times we travelled.
Paul, you said
quote:Captain Moore is quoted in the April 26, 1912 Evening Times and Star, of St. John, New Brunswick. "We could see the Carpathia on the other side of the floe and later the Californian and one or two other liners."
I disagree with your conclusion that Moore uses the definite term "later" to convey a considerable time interval from his estimated 6:00 a.m. sighting of the Carpathia. The only thing we know is that it was not at the same time, but later. What is consistent here is Moore's sighting of the Carpathia first. If he was going northward along the western edge of the pack ice the Carpathia should have been sighted toward his northeast before he passed her at their closest point of approach. Seeing the Californian afterward passing from east to west also makes sense from the time estimate he gave. We agree the Californian was moving across the pack ice between 6 and 6:30. Moore said "The Californian ... was to the north of the Carpathia and steaming to the westward ... as I was going to the north the Californian was passing from east to west." As I said before, this does not sound to me as a supposition but something he saw even if he did not explicitly use the word "sighted" or "saw." The way I see it, the sighting of the Californian came some time after the sighting of the Carpathia as it should based on where Moore was coming from. How much later, we can only guess. But the Californian was noticeably underway for Moore to see the direction she was steaming. The time could have have been 15 minutes later to 45 minutes later depending on exact time of his "about 6 AM" sighting time of the Carpathia and the exact time that he saw the Californian under way.
If Moore first sighted the Californian much later after he came back north to "the [SOS] position," then the Californian would have been seen coming down on the western side of the pack ice. Notice he did NOT say he "first" saw the Californian cruising there. He only confirmed that he saw the Californian cruising there in a response to a question. I certainly do not know how Moore could have estimated how far north the Californian was from the Carpathia if he first saw the Californian for the first time about 7 AM steaming down toward him. His follow on "He was then north of the Carpathia..." statement is clearly referring to the time the Californian was cutting across the ice, a time that he should have had both in sight. That part of the entire testimony has been quoted umpteen times already here.
By the way, Moore to my knowledge never said the Carpathia was 6 miles east of him. Moore gave an estimate of the width of the ice field and said the Carpathia was on the other side of the field. That does not put the Carpathia at the edge of the field, and we know from Rostron that she didn't even come up to the wreckage until about 7:45, and the wreckage was 2-3 miles from the eastern edge of the pack ice.
I guess we just have to disagree on some of these points of interpretation.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 11:03 pm: |
|
Incidentally, I checked the correspondence between Bisset and W.Lord at the NMM in London. Sadly, it seems that Lord only wrote to Bisset AFTER ANTR was published. The only other letter in the file was a picture of the Carpathia crew that Bisset sent, in which he identified the crew for Lord (its the famous picture of Rostron sat in the middle with his leg resting on the other).
I also checked letters between W.Lord and Groves but he didn't add anything other than what he said at the Board of Trade enquiry, or in the Middle Watch. A fair chunk of the correspondence between Lord and Leslie Reade are in that folder, and the former was dumbfounded by Groves saying that he first saw the Titanic [or whatever ship he saw] abaft the starboard beam.
However, there is something interesting. I have managed to find out where a descendant of Herbert Stone lives in Liverpool. I am trying to work up the courage to write to him! |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1658
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 11:11 pm: |
|
D'oh! Forgot to say: Bisset's letter doesn't contain anything about the Carpathia, Californian, or indeed, plattitudes other than "I liked your book".
Most of the Lord-Macquitty collection seems to be banal banter IMHO. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1283
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Hi Paul: Do you have the date of Walter Lord's correspondence with Beauchamp? Was that before or after ANTR was published?
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 12:18 am: |
|
I think it was before ANTR was published. The carbon copies of Lord's letter(s) are at the NMM. Lord asked lots of specific questions about the commotion in the boiler room, to which Beauchamp replied "Was in stokhold when ship struck". Useful, huh. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1289
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:05 pm: |
|
I few comments concerning observations and masthead lights.
quote:Stone does not observe the steamer 8 miles away until Stewart points it out to him. The light from a ship was not obvious even at 8 miles.
Stone was not a very keen observer to say the least. Gibson sees rockets, and Stone sees faint lights. Stewart spots the mast light of a ship with the naked eye and had to point it out to Stone who should have been the one pointing it out to Stewart who just came on minutes before. What Gibson and Stone saw at about 3:20 AM were the rockets fired by the Carpathia.
"1.25 [NY time] M. P. A. [Carpathia] sends: 'If you are there, we are firing rockets.'"
01:25 NY is 3:15 AM Californian time. In further example of Stone's inability to get his bearings correct he wrote of these lights, "We saw nothing further until about 3.20 when we thought we observed two faint lights in the sky about SSW and a little distance apart." Of course to Gibson he didn't just think he observed something, he pointed it out to Stone in the first place. I like the way Stone tends to downplay it. At the time the Carpathia was firing these rockets, about 40-45 minutes before Rostron stopped his engines, the Carpathia would have been about 10-11 miles from Boxhall's boat, the most southern of all the boats, coming up from the SE. Her mast lights were still below the horizon for many in the boats that went northward of the wreck toward the mysterious light. Beesley reported seeing Carpathia’s masthead lights come up soon after seeing the rockets. He thought the time must have been close to 3:30 AM.
Paul S., you are the one who is concluding that the ship firing rockets at 3:20 was 9-10 miles away from the Californian, a conclusion I’m afraid that is based on some wrong assumptions. You appear to assume that the ship seen in daylight about 8 miles away with the yellow funnel was the same that fired these rockets at 3:20 AM. You also appear to have concluded that she came from the east going west. You said:
quote:Thirty minutes later Chief Officer Stewart sees a ship’s lights. She bears about south and in the daylight Captain Lord estimates she is about 8 miles off. If she was steaming west at 11 knots, 30 minutes earlier at 3:30 a.m. she would have been bearing about SSE a little over 9 miles away.
To set the record straight, Lord said, "At daylight we saw a yellow-funnel steamer on the southwest of us, beyond where this man had left, about 8 miles away." In the southwest? Not second hand, but first hand information from Capt. Lord. If it were to the SW then it was on the other side of the pack ice. The yellow funneled steamer seen just before the sun came up in daylight and the ship firing rockets at 3:20 were not that same ship. The latter was the Carpathia. The former, I believe was the Mount Temple seen on the horizon in early morning light about the time she was backing out of the ice to go south. At that time, the MT was much closer to the Californian than the Carpathia was.
Now as to the presumption that it is difficult to see a ship’s masthead light at 8-9 miles away, I could only say that it is entirely unfounded. Since the advent of electric lights on steamers the distance that a light can be seen is much more than when navigation light distances were based on oil lamps. Even on the Titanic QM Rowe mistook the planet Jupiter (magnitude -2.4) in the SE for the light of an approaching ship until he was asked to view it through glasses. Many times a rising star was mistaken for the mast light of a ship coming up over the horizon. An unobstructed 200 watt light bulb (3400 lumens) at 5 nautical miles would appear about as bright as a star of magnitude -1 such as Canopus. Doubling the distance changes the apparent magnitude of a light by 1.5. A light of apparent magnitude -1 drops to magnitude +0.5 (about the brightness of Procyon) when twice as far away, and only to magnitude +1.4 (about the brightness of Regulus)when 3 times as far away.
The point is that lights just don’t disappear when they go beyond a certain range unless they drop under the horizon or get so dim that they no longer stand out conspicuously against the background stars. The average naked eye can see stars down to about magnitude 6 on a very dark, clear and moonless night in the absence of any artificial light in the sky or added attenuation due to fog or haze. (A magnitude 5 star is 100 times less bright than a magnitude 0 star such Arcturus or Vega.) Anything brighter than a magnitude 2 star would be, or should I say, should be quite noticeable against the background of the other stars especially if it is moving.
To reiterate, the reason no ship’s lights were seen at 3:20 AM was because the rockets came from the Carpathia while it was well beyond the horizon, and more than 20 miles from the Californian. It was not from the vessel with a yellow funnel seen in daylight toward the SW later on.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
|
