| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1660
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:44 pm: | 
|
Lest we forget: "Rockets or shells, throwing stars of any colour or description, fired one at a time at short intervals. "
so said the regulations with regard to rockets. Of course, the next day, Lord could claim ignorance that any ship was in danger as he had only been informed of a rocket, and not, as the rules say, "rockets" (plural).
Or so Lord claimed. And I suspect that the ship seem at 4.00am by the Stone and Stewart was the Carpathia, and that they lied. |
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 506
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 2:30 am: |
|
ah yes the regulations w/ rockets. its brought up in every book in the subject, and though through careful selections of the evidence, we get a fanciful story which says Stone & Gibson couldn't have seen Titanic's Socket Signals, but instead saw flares or roman candles, and than others will tell you they were seen, but that only Colored Socket signals counted, and not white ones. Nonsense all of it. Stone and Gibson Saw 8 white rockets throwing stars which fit the description Distress socket signals "Rockets or shells, throwing stars of any colour or description, fired one at a time at short intervals." note the words of any colour or description, which basically means a distress socket signal could be any color imaginable or white which some people say isn't a color.
I think I stayed on topic there.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1292
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Paul Lee wrote:
quote:And I suspect that the ship seen at 4.00am by the Stone and Stewart was the Carpathia, and that they lied.
I don't see how they could identify what ship it was shortly after 4 AM when Stewart got his eye's adjusted to the dark other than what was described. I see no reason to lie. It was still too dark to define the horizon at that time. At that time the Mount Temple would have been close to where she finally came to a stop between 4:30 and 4:45. We know from Moore she was proceeding slowly from about 3:30 onward. By about 4 AM the Carpathia had maneuvered to pick up Boxhall's boat to leeward on her starboard side first having to port around an iceberg (see Rostron). Neither the Carpathia nor the Californian would have particularly noticed each other because of the way they were pointing. They were essentially facing each other stern to stern hull down, and mast lights and sidelights would have been shut out. Stern lights would have been right near the level of the horizon and not stand out conspicuously from the background stars.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1661
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Theres a very good reason to lie, Sam. If the ship they saw at 4.00am was the Carpathia, then they must have been within visual range of the Titanic that night! |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1295
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Hi Paul: I do not necessarily agree although I understand what you are saying. There is every reason to believe that the ship that caught Steward's eye at 4 AM was not the Carpathia. We know from Rostron that the Mount Temple was more northward than the Carpathia at 5 AM in the morning just before she started to go south. Although Rostron could not specifically identify it as the MT, he described seeing two ships to the northward, one with 4 masts and single funnel, the other with 2 masts and a single funnel. His estimate was 7 to 8 miles away. We know from Moore that he was continuously in sight of this small steamer with 2 masts and a black funnel, so it seems that the 4 masted ship seen by Rostron was the MT. The smaller ship would have been more to the southward of the two since Moore said the other ship was south of him and he followed her southward to look for a passage through the ice after it got light enough to safely move again.
Lord said he saw the 4 masted ship in the SW. The Carpathia would be to his SE. The ship seen by both Stewart and Lord after it got light enough to really see what they were looking at was described as having a yellow funnel and judged to be about 8 miles away. The Carpathia had a red funnel which, even in the breaking light of day, would not appear yellowish. (I don't think Cunard changed its colors over the years. I've seen the QM and QE many times in evening twilight in NY many years ago. I never would have mistaken their funnels as anything but red, with a large black band on top, and two very thin black bands, one about 1/3 down and another 2/3 down. If anything, the red color may have showed as a brighter red with a low lying sun. Never orange or yellow. My favorite was always the QM with her 3 funnels, but that's another story.)
By the way, I hope nobody takes Lord's "SW" or Rostron's "northward" to be precise bearings. They were more or less general directions. I also would be a little careful when using anyone's estimate of distance, although during daylight they would tend to be much more accurate compared to estimating the distance to a ship by seeing just her lights on a dark night. As you and I know, it would be a big mistake to add Rostron's 8 miles with Lord's 8 miles to get 16 miles between Carpathia and Californian. The MT was on the western side of the ice field while both Californian and Carpathia were on the eastern side of the field between 4:30 and 5:00 AM. The three formed a triangle.
And the above just gave me an idea.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1297
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 3:27 am: |
|
An entirely unexpected result happened when I decided to draw out the situation at 5 AM, a half hour before sun rise based on what Lord and Rostron said they saw. Both the Californian and Carpathia are on the eastern side of the ice field. The Mount Temple on the western side. Assuming the Mount Temple was the yellow funneled steamer seen by Stewart and Lord about 8 miles off, and assuming it was the Mount Temple that Rostron saw also about 8 miles off, we place the three ships on the corners of an isosceles triangle with two the equal sides each about 8 miles in length. The base of this triangle represents the straight line distance between Californian and Carpathia. The apex is where the Mount Temple would be. The size the base depends on the distance of the apex to the base. But that distance would be the thickness of the ice field which acording to Moore was 5 to 6 miles wide. The situation is shown below.
The solution to this geometric problem is quite easy. I'll let others post the solution.
The issue of course is the identity of the yellow funneld steamer. Paul Slish and Senan Molony will argue that it was not the Mount Temple because neither Lord nor Stewart made that association later on as the Californian passed the Mount Temple about a mile off. The yellow-funneled steamer is discussed on pages 187-190 in Senan's book for those interested. Senan concluded that the steamer was seen on the eastern side of the ice field but doesn't explain why. Stewart refered to the steamer as being to the southward. Lord at one point said it was in the SW as I quoted. (I'll discount Lord's 1959 affidavit where he changed it to the the SSE.) If this steamer was to the SSE of the Californian about 8 miles, and the Carpathia was about 18 miles SE of the Californian as Paul has suggested, then this mysterious 4-masted, yellow-funneled steam would have been about 10 miles from the Carpathia. Yet what happened to it? Disappeared in broad daylight? I know Rostron, Bisset and others had lots of other things to do besides look at who was around them that morning. And Lord and Stewart were not watching out at other ships all the time once Steward went below to seek out Evans. So this steamer may have slipped away as mysteriously as it seemed to show up. Obviously not heading north or it would have probably been seen come close by someone on the Californian. Obviously not heading south or it would have probably been seen come close by someone on the Carpathia. Obviously not west or it would have been seen by the Mount Temple on the other side of the ice. Maybe it went back to Europe after slipping behind an iceberg?
Or maybe it was the Mount Temple which headed south on the western side of the ice pack as Moore claimed he did.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
Hi Sam, Based on that geometry (neat picture by the way!), the Caprathia should have been visible to the Californian, but hull down. With lights on her masts and superstructure, she should have been visible. But then, I agree with you that Stone was not very observant.
Incidentally, what about the heading of the yellow funnelled ship as seen by Stewart? He thought she was heading west - or the same direction as the Californian. At 4.00am, that could only really apply to the Carpathia. The MT was heading in a northerly, or north-westerly direction after she reached her southernmost nadir of the icefield and started heading north again, after 5.00am. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 78
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 4:34 am: |
|
Well, I'm back, but will be going away again shortly. Sam, thank you for all your analysis which is interesting and I have read very carefully.
First, I didn't do a very good job of communicating one point. I was not intending to convey that the yellow funnel steamer was firing rockets. If that's the impression I made, I'm sorry for that. I agree that the rockets seen by Gibson and by Stone (even though he was unsure) were from the Carpathia so we are in agreement on that. I don't know what the course of the yellow funnel steamer was. I should have used the word hypothetical when I said it came from the east on a basically west course.
Secondly, how far away the Carpathia was from the wreck site or Boxhall's lifeboat at 3:20 am is not easy to know. Captain Rostron said he saw a green light at 2:40 am a half point off the port bow. I think we are all agreed what he saw was one of Boxhall's White Star company signals. Rostron stated that time in both the USA and England, so I don't think it is a mistake. Bisset confirms it in his second volume of "Tramps and Ladies" of 1960. Rostron states the first iceberg was seen five minutes later at 2:45 am. So I really don't think the 2:40 am sighting of the green light is in error.
The question is as follows. How far could the Carpathia officers see the low lying green light that Boxhall displayed? That is the distance Carpathia covered in the next 80 minutes up to 4:00 am when she was close to the lifeboat. If she made 17 knots, they were seeing that green light at over 22 miles. That is extremely unlikely. Rostron seems to indicate they maintained full speed almost until they stopped. Bisset indicates a slackening to half at 3:30 am and later to slow as they came up to 4:00 am. This is according to Padfield's "Titanic and the Californian" as I don't have Bisset's book and all the context of the quote. After sighting the first iceberg, Bisset says Rostron put the telegraph to half for some time, and then put it to full again. Rostron certainly didn't want to severely damage his own ship. After they sighted the second iceberg, I find it hard to believe they kept booming along at full speed. Bisset also indicated a top speed of 16 knots which seems more reasonable, since the Carpathia was rated at 15 knots by Lloyds.
Is 10 miles a reasonable figure to see the green light? How high up did it go? 15 feet? If the Carpathia bridge was 50 feet above the waterline (I'm guessing) and the green lights went up 15 feet we have a theoretical distance of just under 13 miles. Even if we accept a sighting at 13 miles, that comes out to an average speed of 9.77 knots for the Carpathia from 2:40 am to 4:00 am. The first 30 minutes of that run was probably faster than that and the last 30 minutes was probably slower. If the Carpathia was at half speed from 3:30 to 4:00 am, then she would cover 4 miles. Add on 2 miles back to 3:20 am (12 knots) and she is 6 miles from Boxhall's lifeboat. If the Carpathia stopped about 19 miles on a direct line from the Californian, that means she was about 25 miles away at 3:20 am. Stone described what he saw as a faint flash. Gibson said it was right down on the horizon. If that distress rocket went up about 500 feet this makes perfect sense to me.
Now in an earlier post Sam mentioned about a rocket seen from a lifeboat, but didn't give the source. Recently he posted again and identified Lawrence Beesley as the author. I don't know if it is still in print, but many years ago I bought the Dover edition of "The Story of the Titanic as told by its Survivors." It is a great book. Beesley's "The Loss of the Titanic" is in it.
First, from the lifeboat Beesley only mentions seeing one rocket at about 3:30 am. "We all turned quickly to look and there it was certainly: streaming up from behind the horizon like a distant flash of a warship's searchlight; then a faint boom like guns afar off, and the light died away again."
How far off could they hear a distress rocket? Maybe 7 miles? It was after this rocket (exactly how long is not stated) that first a light was seen coming over the horizon, and then later it was distinguished as two lights. The Carpathia stopped about 4:00 am or 4:05 her time. Beesley was in a heavily loaded lifeboat and states they reached the Carpathia about 4:30 am. They had to row around an iceberg, so how far did they row? Maybe a mile in 30 minutes? So Beesley's lifeboat being about 7 miles from the Carpathia when they saw the rocket makes sense to me. |
Paul Slish
Member
Username: lemko
Post Number: 79
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 5:14 am: |
|
I wouldn't put too much stock in the exactness of bearings unless the person specifically testified he took a compass bearing.
Lord said the yellow funnel steamer was to the southwest.
But what did Stewart say?
"8901. And in what direction was it that you saw this light which you were able to pick up? - About south."
But what did Stone say?
In his April 18 statement.
"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."
Lord says SW. Stewart and Stone both say "about south." Perhaps Lord was off on this one. It is two against one. My point is I wouldn't try to make an exact calculation of the distance from the Carpathia to the Californian based on this one bearing by Lord.
Also Stone gives two different bearings as to where he saw two faint lights at 3:20 am. In his April 18 statement he says "about S.S.W."
In London he testified.
"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."
Here it is "southward", "about on the port beam." "We were heading about west at the time."
If Stone's "southward" is an estimated bearing by compass that would be about SSE true which is approximately the bearing we would expect to see the Carpathia's rockets. If Stone used his binoculars to see the two faint lights, then he can't take a compass bearing at the same time.
Again, unless the officer testifies he took a compass bearing, I wouldn't take the bearings mentioned as exact. They could be off a couple of points.
Captain Rostron testified the Californian bore WSW true from him when he sighted her. That sounds rather exact. But the two ships he saw at 5:00 am he describes as to the "northwards" which is a much more general bearing. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Hi Paul Lee:
The heading direction of the ship seen at 4 AM came from Stone, not Stewart. He [Stone] said, "I saw a steamer then just abaft the port beam showing two masthead lights apparently heading much in the same direction as ourselves (8017)."
Stewart on the other hand had said, "I thought she might have drifted back - that she had found that she could not get through the ice (8639)…Q. What did you mean? - A. That she had come back (8648)…Q. She had steamed back? - Yes (8649). If Stewart at the time really thought that, then that would make the steamer seen at 4 AM heading northeastward having come back from the SW. I’m a bit concerned when headings or bearings come from Stone without supportive evidence.
Apparently Stewart did not entirely believe Stone when Stone told him that he did not think it was the same ship. The ship seen at 4 AM had 2 mast lights, the ship seen earlier by Stone and Gibson firing rockets during the middle watch had only 1 mast light. But Stewart apparently was having some doubts, and went down and called on Lord who came up to the bridge about 4:30. Stewart never told Lord that Stone thought they were not the same ship. According to Stewart, when Lord saw the ship at 4:30 he said, “No, she looks all right; she is not making any signals now.” If this is true, then Lord should have realized that the ship seen at 4:30 was not the same ship he saw at 11:30 the previous night if he had bothered to notice the number of mast lights.
The first hand report of what Lord said came from Lord himself: “Then he [Stewart] said, ‘Will you go down to look at this steamer to the southward?’ I asked him, ‘Why, what is the matter with it? ’He said, ‘He might have lost his rudder.’ But I said, ‘Why? He has not got any signals up.’ ‘No, but,’ he said, ‘the second officer in his watch said he fired several rockets.’ I said, ‘Go and call the wireless operator.’” This had to be close to 5:10 AM when this conversation happened since we know Evans contacted the MT at 5:15 Californian time according to Durrant’s PV.
Of course at 4 AM nobody could accurately tell distance very well. It was still too dark. The estimate of 8 miles came from Lord after it was light enough to see the steamer itself though glasses as opposed to only her lights. Although Stewart said he saw it was a yellow-funneled steamer after the sun came, it must have been about a half hour before actual sunrise when there was a good amount of sunlight from the eastern sky during civil twilight. Stewart was not on bridge at the time of sunrise which was at 5:31 their time. That is when Evans was in contact with the Frankfurt and received confirmation of the SOS position which he wrote down for Stewart to take back to Lord.
Meanwhile, the Mount Temple was reported to back out of the ice at 3:20 NYT (5:10 AM Californian time) according to the Durrant's PV log. Stewart by his own admission was not on bridge very much after 5:15.
(8778) Q. What time did you start moving? – A. 5.15. (8781) Q. How slow? – A. I could not tell you what we were going; I was not very much on the bridge after that time.
Apparently Lord stayed on the bridge when Stewart went to see Evans minutes before 5:15. At the American Inquiry Lord said, "We moved the engines first at 5.15 on the 15th of April, full ahead." This is before they heard about the disaster. At the British Inquiry Lord said, "5.15 we moved the engines for a few minutes and then we stopped on account of the news we received, and waited till 6 o’clock." So where were they headed at 5:15 when they went “full ahead?” Obviously not through the pack ice at that time.
The answer is hinted at by Lord. “I was undecided whether to go through it or to turn round and go back, and we decided to go on, so I told him to put the engines on and stand by. He did so.” This was just before the conversation they had a little after 5 AM when Stewart asked him will they be going down to look at the steamer to the southward. At 5:15 Lord went full ahead but stopped soon after “on account of the news” they received. So when did they receive the news? It seems about 20 minutes later after Stewart came back from Evans following the 5:30 contact with the Frankfurt (3:40 NY time). This is confirmed by Lord,
"The chief officer came back some time after...I suppose 15 to 20 minutes…He said, ‘There is a ship sunk.’…he went back to the wireless room straight away…[He came back] some time after that. He said, ‘The Titanic has hit a berg and sunk.’…I left the bridge and went to the wireless room myself.”
All this fits together since Evans gave Stewart the position after speaking with the Frankfurt which confirmed the SOS coordinates received first from the Mount Temple contact at 5:15. (See Durrant’s PV for all these times.) We know Evans got the Virginian at 5:50 AM and got an MSG which he gave to Lord. That was an official message from Capt. Gamble to Capt. Lord. It was right after that that Lord acted very decisively to take his ship through the pack ice to the reported coordinates. So it seems that for at least 15 to 20 minutes they went full speed, that's about 3 miles, before Stewart came back to the bridge to report a ship sunk during the night. But 3 miles to where? As Lord said of his conversation with Stewart before sending him down to call upon Evans, “we decided to go on.” So they didn’t turn around to go back, and they did not cut across the ice field at full speed at that time either. It seems only two choices, go southward along the edge of the field for a place to get across, or go northward along the edge of the field for a place to get across.
Now granted, this is a bit of speculation, but it seems Lord decided initially to head northward. Why? As he said the ship seen to their south did not appear to be in any sort of trouble. They were headed to Boston, and we know from Rostron the ice field went from NW to SE on the eastern edge. Going southward would be taking them away as opposed to northward which would take them toward their destination.
Where I am going with this? When Lord started to cut across the field ice at 6 AM, going slowly and carefully by his own account, his ship’s distance from the wreckage had likely increased by about 3 miles from what it was at 4 AM. And this needs to be factored in when considering the total distance traveled along the route he took to reach the Carpathia later on.
I’ll have more to say about that some time later.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1663
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Its a bit suprising that the red/green light wasn't seen on the other ship by Stone and Stewart. I'd always assumed that the heading of the ship was deduced by the relative height of the lights on the masts. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 6:47 pm: |
|
If they were seen they just didn't say. Not saying anything does not mean that they didn't see the sidelights Paul.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Welcome back Paul Slish. Hope everything is going well with you.
quote:I was not intending to convey that the yellow funnel steamer was firing rockets... I agree that the rockets seen by Gibson and by Stone (even though he was unsure) were from the Carpathia so we are in agreement on that.
OK, thanks for the clarification about that.
quote:Captain Rostron said he saw a green light at 2:40 am a half point off the port bow. I think we are all agreed what he saw was one of Boxhall's White Star company signals.
Yes, we agree on what he saw. However, Rostron's time is very suspect. There is no way (except you believe in some mirage effect) for one of Boxhall's flares to be seen that far away (about 20 miles at 15 knots) from the bridge of the Carpathia. Bisset wrote the same time in his book, but ther are quite a few detail in his book that were filled after taken from other sources, not necessarily his personal notes he may have made at the time. I believe the best explanation of the 2:40 time is what Dave Gittins has suggested. The 2:40 is most likely the travel time (see Dave's e-book and website) since the Carpathia received the SOS. 12:35 AM + 2:40 = 3:15 AM. That is about 50 minutes before Rostron stopped his engines placing him about 10-11 miles from Boxhall's boat. Bisset's account is in Ch 23 of Tramps & Ladies. He mentions a brief reduction to 1/2 speed when the 1st iceberg was sighted and then mentions a reduction to 1/2 and slow ahead as they approached Boxhall's boat. Those last reductions were sometime during the last half hour of approach according to Bisset. Rostron claimed his speed had dropped only 2-4 knots 3 minutes after stopping his engines at 4:05 when he ported around an iceberg seen about 1/4 mile ahead of him (25467). He also claimed he had reached a maximum speed of 17 1/2 knots that night, but that is because he thought he reached the SOS position which we know he never did. There is no way they could have produced enough power to go that fast. (Power required goes as the cube of the speed). Ordinarily they made 14 knots at full ahead. Probably no more than 15 to 16 knots tops if they could shovel the coal fast enough.
quote:Is 10 miles a reasonable figure to see the green light?
Height of eye from the bridge of the Carpathia was about 50 feet above waterline (Bisset). Boxhall was seen standing in the sternsheets of the boat No. 2 steering with the tiller. Holding a flare above his head, I'd put the height of Boxhall's green light at 6 feet above the water. Extreme range tables yeild 11 miles. So yes, about 10 miles is reasonable. We also know that nethier Stone nor Gibson nor Stewart ever said anything about seeing a green light. This means Boxhall's boat was certainly greater than 10.7 miles away.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 12:11 am: |
|
quote:I wouldn't put too much stock in the exactness of bearings unless the person specifically testified he took a compass bearing.
I agree. And I also give more weight if a bearing is confirmed by a second source such as the compass bearing to stopped steamer at 12:15 AM seen by Groves, Stone, and Gibson. Anytime someone uses the term northward or southward, etc. they are giving a very broad general direction. Southward could mean anywhere from SW to SE. However, when someone gives a more specific direction like "southwest" they are being a little more specific than just southward. In the case of Stone when he wrote about seeing those "two faint lights in the sky about SSW," to me I interpret that as to the SSW plus or minus a point. Although he didn't always specify it directly, all of the bearings he seems to give are compass bearings as opposed to true bearings. SSW by compass would be South true in that location. The Carpathia would have come up from the SSE by compass which is SE true. (See attached chart below.) That's a difference of 4 points. Of course if he was converting compass to true and went the wrong way in the conversion that would explain it. But I don't see even a hint that he was doing that.
As far as Lord's SW direction for yellow-funneled steamer, if that were SW true that places it 8 points away from where the Carpathia stopped. If that were a compass direction it gives a 6 point difference. Something gave the Lord the impression that that steamer was more to west of south at the time he testified. In his 1959 affidavit, 47 years after the event, he changed the direction to SSE but didn't specify if that were compass or true.
In that same 1959 memo he also said that he was undecided which way go in the morning, and even considered turning the ship around to go down to the SE to look for a clear passage. When he saw clear water to west of the ice field he decided to put the engine on standby at 5:15. He never mentions anything in that memo about actually getting underway at 5:15 as he and Stewart did in their respective 1912 testimonies.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 2903
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 3:50 am: |
|
I've been watching this remarkably civilised discussion from the cheap seats.
I won't join in the arguments over who went where. I'll just refer to my e-book, in which I show from Captain Lord’s own testimony that his claimed overnight position is quite untenable. The only additional comment I'd make is that Lord didn't cross the icefield by steering west, or a bit south of west. On his own evidence, he steered various courses that he hoped would average 196° True. If the northern part of the field lay about north-south, as in the Foweraker chart derived from Lord's own sketch, this would place him in the field for much more than the half hour claimed. This would explain why he took so long to reach Mount Temple, only about eight miles away.
Let's attack from another angle. Consider the “mystery ship”, or was it “ships”?
This ship possessed remarkable qualities. Consider how it appeared from Titanic. To quote myself ----
“It is thus not surprising that when we examine the nocturnal observations of the witnesses from Titanic and Californian, we find that it is possible to prove almost anything. Lights seen from Titanic were white. There were coloured sidelights as well as white lights. There was only one light. There were two. They were lights on a steamer. There was only the single stern light of a sailing ship. They moved. They did not move. They advanced. They retreated. The light may have been a star. The other ship was two miles off. It was ten miles off. It was every distance between.
The witnesses on Californian are just as unhelpful. They saw a big liner. They saw a small ship like their own. It showed two masthead lights. It showed one. The ship moved off. It simply disappeared. It sent up rockets. The rockets came from beyond the ship.”
All these observations are supported by testimony. I cite the witnesses in the e-book.
Lord's apologists like to concentrate on the evidence from Joseph Boxhall, who said he saw lights which indicated a ship that approached Titanic, showing port and starboard lights, before turning away. I would point out that Boxhall's observations were intermittent. He was helping with boats and firing socket signals. He was not staring steadily at the lights. Moreover, he would not have had his full night vision. As a seaman, he should have been one of the better witnesses, but the value of his testimony seems somewhat questionable.
The evidence from the numerous other witnesses is a mass of confusion and contradictions. A basic problem is that the “mystery ship” must satisfy many contradictory conditions. Most importantly, she must somehow contrive to show Boxhall her port and starboard lights while showing Herbert Stone her steaming light and port sidelight. Get out your toy boats and test that one!
The story is so complex that in 1913 Maurice Foweraker, an early Lord supporter, decided that two “mystery ships” were on the scene. One, called Z, approached Titanic. The other, X, was stopped five miles SE of Californian. Foweraker thus managed to satisfy the appearances to his own satisfaction. If we must drag in “mystery ships”, Foweraker's scheme seems reasonable enough.
However, the “mystery ships” must possess remarkable qualities. X, managed to steam off to the SW, happily steaming into an icefield that stopped Captains Lord, Moore and Stulpin. Z appears to have simply vanished.
The “mystery ship” (or ships) must have been manned by remarkably incompetent officers and lookouts. In particular, the crew of X managed to steer directly at Titanic and her distress signals, yet they turned away without stopping to assist, turning down the chance of lucrative salvage money in the process. The crew of Z, stopped somewhere closer to Titanic than Californian, also failed to act.
When all was over, what did the crew(s) of the “mystery ship(s)” have to say? Precisely nothing! Nobody came forward to tell of sighting distress signals on the night to remember. Amazing men! Captain Lords crowd couldn't keep quiet for a week.
Let's unsheath Ockhams razor, give it a good stropping, and see what follows.
“Entities should not be multiplied needlessly, which is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.”
Let's remove the “mystery ship(s)” and their mute mariners from the scene.
We are left with a slowly rotating ship that had two steaming lights, plus sidelights. (Californian). We have a ship that had only one steaming light, plus sidelights. (Titanic). We have distress signals fired by Titanic, plus the later signals from Carpathia. Lord, Stone and Gibson thought the ship they saw was about the same size as Califorian. The upper decks of Titanic, which were visible from Californian at a distance of about 12 miles, were about the length of Californian.
The lights of these two ships were witnessed by seamen of widely varying competence and by passengers. At least one star, Capella, confused observers. The observers on Titanic, or in her boats, were anxious, if not actually scared stiff. At least one witness (Ernest Gill) lied outright. As one would expect, their evidence is a mass of contradictions. Are they to be reconciled by introducing “mystery ships” possessing exceptional qualities? Not in my opinion. Human fallibility, incompetence and venality amply explain the strange sights seen on that memorable night.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
quote:If we must drag in “mystery ships”, Foweraker's scheme seems reasonable enough.
Senan does not stop at just two. On p.252 of his book (the subject of this thread) he lists five other unidentified sightings to show that those waters were full of ships "that eluded investigation:"
1. A small 2-masted steamer seen by Californian, Carpathia, and Mount Temple.
2. The schooner that raced across Mount Temple's path.
3. A pink-funned steamer seen by Lord on the west side of the ice field.
4. The steamer that showing a red sidelight to Carpathia at 3:15 AM.
5. The yellow-funneled steamer seen from Californian to the southward in the morning.
He also talks about ship that stopped about 5 miles to the SE of Californian, and a different ship that approached within 5 miles to the west of Titanic. Most of the arguments are based on subjective observations, specified routes of travel, and the now known location of the wreck site. The book is quite comprehensive, and he does address most of the known issues.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 2906
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 10:03 pm: |
|
1. A small 2-masted steamer seen by Californian, Carpathia, and Mount Temple.
This ship is irrelevant. It came up from the SW with Mount Temple and was never on the scene during the sinking.
2. The schooner that raced across Mount Temple's path.
I love the "raced". The ship was doing one or two knots in the light breeze. Anyway, it was nowhere near the scene during the sinking.
3. A pink-funneled steamer seen by Lord on the west side of the ice field.
This ship was seen only by Lord, if he saw it at all. The document found by Paul Lee contains dubious navigational details that support my contention that the Almerian story is a seaman's yarn.
4. The steamer that showing a red sidelight to Carpathia at 3:15 AM.
This is a genuine mystery, but it's unlikely the ship was on the scene. See my site at http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/carpathia.html
5. The yellow-funneled steamer seen from Californian to the southward in the morning.
Obviously Mount Temple.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1304
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 2:13 am: |
|
quote:5. The yellow-funneled steamer seen from Californian to the southward in the morning.
Obviously Mount Temple.
I agree with your assessment Dave, however, it might not be so obvious. The lights of that ship were seen a little after 4 AM, the MT was still steaming although slowly till about 4:30 or a little after. The Carpathia happened to arrive also about 4 AM and Paul Lee I believe was under the impression that it was she that was seen.
Anyway, I believe I have addresses these issues in some of my previous posts concerning this ship and conclude the same as you have.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1666
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 10:00 pm: |
|
There was recent talk of Groves on this forum, and I'd like to chip in something that may not be well known: according to the Lord-Macquitty collection, Groves went to a Boston newspaper after the Californian had docked, in regard to the Titanic matter, but the paper wouldn't/couldn't see him. |
Michael Tennaro
Member
Username: tennaro
Post Number: 642
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Charlie Haas has just put up a review of the book on Amazon:
In my review for Titanic International Society's journal "Voyage," I called Irish journalist Senan Molony's 2003 book, "A Ship Accused," "an exceptional, clear and complete vindication" of Californian's Captain Stanley Lord, "an essential addition to any Titanic library, and a first-rate forensic examination of one of Titanic's most enduring controversies."
Now, Molony's "Titanic and the Mystery Ship," essentially a reprise of "A Ship Accused," is available and better than the original.
In the 94 years since Titanic's loss, no other issue provokes such protracted debate as the identity of the vessel so tantalizingly close to the dying Titanic, and that of the vessel being carefully observed aboard Californian. The complexity of the discussion, involving timing, sightings, rockets, movements, headings, navigational positions, Morse lamp signals, even the nature of the vessel(s) in view, has intensified the debate, often adding passion at the expense of facts.
Molony's forte is in isolating each strand of the supposed case against the Californian and dispassionately examining the evidence. Logical fallacies, factual contradictions, witnesses' inconsistencies -- one by one, each pillar supporting the case against Californian is examined and effectively dismissed. As I wrote in 2003, "One finds oneself wishing that Molony, and not the ineffectual C. Robertson Dunlop, had represented Californian's officers and captain at the Mersey inquiry."
Once Molony has made his case -- and a powerful one it is -- he adds, as an appendix, a thoughtful appraisal of several candidates for the mystery ship, while not committing to any favorite.
The new volume has significantly improved photographs, deletion of the previous edition's computer-manipulated images, tighter editing and improved organization and transitions. The first volume's 50 chapters have been distilled into 26. The new volume is commercially published, hopefully with wider dissemination. A minor minus: The text is set in a size requiring bifocals.
If you didn't purchase "A Ship Accused," you have another chance to read a thought-provoking vindication of a much-maligned mariner.
Titanic Book Site.com
|
Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400
Post Number: 353
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 2:22 am: |
|
Michael, it looks to be a brilliant work.
I will order a copy for myself for Christmas.
Steve |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 3:22 am: |
|
quote:I called Irish journalist Senan Molony's 2003 book, "A Ship Accused," "an exceptional, clear and complete vindication" of Californian's Captain Stanley Lord, "an essential addition to any Titanic library, and a first-rate forensic examination of one of Titanic's most enduring controversies." Now, Molony's "Titanic and the Mystery Ship," essentially a reprise of "A Ship Accused," is available and better than the original.
Two things struck me when I read this review.
1. The issue of vindication of Stanley Lord, and
2. that these books are a first-rate forensic examination of the controversy.
I don't have the first book, but as far as the current version is concerned, believe it is far from being a vindication of the role of the Californian, and it certainly is not a 1st rate forensic examination.
The premise of vindication seems to be in proving that the mystery ship seen by those on the Titanic was not the Californian, and the mystery ship seen from the Californian was not the Titanic. But the real issue of vindication has to do with the one fact that is not in dispute. The officer of the watch (OOW) on the Californian, 2/O Stone, and the apprentice Gibson, saw a sequence of distress signals which everyone now agrees came from the Titanic. Other than a failed attempt to establish contact by Morse lamp, which began about an hour before any rockets were seen at all, the Californian stood still. The wireless operator was not called upon to find out what was going on. The Captain was not called to the bridge to see for himself what was going on. Despite a remark being said between the two on the bridge that that a ship at sea was not going to fire rockets at night for nothing, or that the lights seemed to take on a strange appearance, no proactive measures were taken.
The issue of vindication as far as I'm concerned can be, and should be, separated from the issue of what ships were seen that night. And the issue of vindication of Lord should be separated from the issue of the actions taken, or not taken, by those in trusted with the responsibility of the watch.
As far as being a first-rate forensic examination, I can only say that it is not even close. The arguments presented are based mostly on observational judgement and opinion. Once certain points are presented as if fact, they are then used to prove other so called facts. There is really very little objective analysis as far as I'm concerned. I certainly would not say it dispassionately examines the evidence. Far from it.
On the plus side, the book is very comprehensive and well referenced. It does lay out most of the known issues for debate. But as you can see from the several posts above, the issues are far from being closed.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 2938
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 4:01 am: |
|
I couldn't be happier if Leslie Harrison himself endorsed the book!
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Michael Tennaro
Member
Username: tennaro
Post Number: 643
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 1:53 pm: |
|
In some ways I agree with Sam. Bottom line, though is that NO book ever published on the subject has yet to answer the issues he disagrees with. Of them all, Molony's comes the closest I have read. He blows Padfield, Harrison and Reade out of the water; they are even more guilty of the issues Sam raises.
The Californian is the Gordian Knot of all knots. Rather than pick apart any one book, I would really enjoy seeing the other side presented as comprehensively as Molony has done from his point of view.
all the best, Michael (TMiB)
Titanic Book Site.com
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1321
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 5:24 pm: |
|
I believe the best one can hope for is to separate what was possible from what was impossible regarding the stopped positions of the two ships and what appearances they could present on a dark, clear, moonless night. Then let the reader come to their own conclusions. Short off someone finding that missing log line of the Californian on the bottom of the Atlantic, there will always be a degree of uncertainty we have to live with. The hardest part is trying to remain objective, which is far easier said than done. I do agree with Michael that Senan's book provides a most comprehensive treatment of the major issues involved. For that alone, and putting all feelings aside, I find it a must read for the serious student.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10857
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 1:55 am: |
|
Another value of Senan's work in my opinion is that it's essentially the case for the defence had this matter ever been brought to the point of criminal charges and a trial.
Some might accuse Senan of trying to confuse the issue to which I would say: Fair enough. What do you think a halfway decent trial lawyer would have done? When trying to deal with a jury, all the defence has to do is make the case for reasonable doubt while the prosecution has to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Username: j_d_oneill
Post Number: 508
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 2:50 am: |
|
I Think Senan's book is top notch and the best of the current Californian books. though those other 3 books should all be bought to as they all contain some essential info, and don't forget the MAIB Report too.
Jesse D. O'Neill
|
Rob Kamps
Member
Username: alaska
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 9:32 am: |
|
Peter Padfield, author of The Titanic and the Californian (1965) has this to say about The Titanic and the Mystery Ship on his website:
"Anyone who can read this book conscientiously and remain a critic of Captain Lord merits condolence. Professional authors and historians seem to be united on this one." |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Lest we forget, this is the same Peter Padfield who was interviewed by the BBC c.2000 and when discussing the Titanic and the Californian, only mentioned that "lights" were seen. No mention of rockets at all.
Convenient. |
Rob Kamps
Member
Username: alaska
Post Number: 2
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 5:55 pm: |
|
No, Paul, very INconvenient I should say and you should get your facts right first before making such a wounding remark. It was "the same Peter Padfield" who complained bitterly afterwards that a lot had been edited out of that documentary by the makers, including the issue of the rockets. He had a lot more to say.
Rob |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1668
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 11:08 pm: |
|
I shall dig out my copy of the documentary and see if there were any obvious edits in it. I shall also contact the production company involved to see if Padfield's allegations are correct. However, having obtained a copy of his book and being surprised at some of his anti-Lord omissions, I know which version of events I shall believe.
There does seem to be some scurrillous behaviour on both sides of the debate. I for one, won't buy Molony's book based on his nasty attitude on this forum. Also, Leslie Reade himself seems content to spend a great deal of time dissing those whose conclusions he doesn't agree with - but, as L.Harrison said to Reade, he wanted the latter to chnage his stance from anti- to pro-Lord as this would be good publicity for the Lordite cause.
What is important, is not what the researchers are like as people, but whether their research is sound. For instance, see here |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1669
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Sorry the link is here:
http://home.planet.nl/~kamps111/articles.htm |
Rob Kamps
Member
Username: alaska
Post Number: 3
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 12:11 am: |
|
Hi Paul, good to see you are putting behind that public bust-up with Ghosts.UK. Some of the charges they are making against you on their website are extremely serious. Have you taken legal advice? You might be able to get the allegations taken down.
If you think you can slur everyone else's character, let's see how you like it when the magnifying glass is put on your own! You RICHLY deserve it:
http://www.ghosts-uk.net/moduls/news/article-php?storyid=708
and: http://www.ghosts-uk.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&topic_id=3832&forum=11
Making crank complaints to the taxman? Get over yourself, Doctor!
As for the Californian... |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 1:10 am: |
|
Yes I have taken legal advice. As for Ghosts-UK the argument is irrelevant to this discussion- and wheres the proof that I made crank complaints to the taxman about G-UK? Anyway, many people had done the same, indluding people who had been treated the same as me (including one person who made a complaing to the charity commission about G-UK's then maintainer running a charity vigil for Cancer-UK and then skimming £300 off to end up in his own pocket- his father was then dying of cancer at the time).
I must wonder about the tactics of any person/researcher who introduced irrelevancies into an argument in an effort to introduce doubt, or slander about their opponents. Your website is full of that. Does it really matter if Reade and DeGroot got up to any naughtiness in their research? Is it relevant? DId they come up with good conclusions? And, on the same hand, what are we to say of Harrison et al, particularly his boast to the press about "the book we managed to kill" (The Ship That Stood Still) in order to keep debate about the Californian one-sided amongst the media and GENUINE researchers, who had only heard the same tiresome Lordite propaganda and authors trilling about how Lord was falsely accused, and he is innocent of charges etc.
Slur everyone else's character? Lets take a look at this: demeaning Reade (which I agree with) - GOOD demeaning Walter Lord - GOOD demeaning Molony and Harrison - BAD
Could it be that the latter two are pro-Lord, and you don't like that, so welcome any excuse to assassinate their character, but your friends are above reproach? I suspect so. It seems that only pro-Lordies can do only right, and everyone else is wrong. Also, on YOUR website, you diss many serious researchers, some of whom's only "crimes" are debating things with Harrison et al. Some of these people are friends of mine, and the stories they tell of you and your antics are of some concern. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10859
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 3:58 am: |
|
As a point of order, the character of the members of this forum are not at issue and need to remain not at issue. Captain Lord's conduct and character are at issue and in matters of historical discussion, is fair game for all points good or bad.
This has been a refreshingly civil discussion so far and we need to keep it that way.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Rob Kamps
Member
Username: alaska
Post Number: 4
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 11:17 pm: |
|
"This has been a refreshingly civil discussion so far and we need to keep it that way".
I agree, but by stating that you, Paul Lee, had your facts wrong in your needless and insulting statement about Peter Padfield's allegedly deliberate omission of the issue of the rockets in that documentary, I obviously unwittingly invited you to put my website address on this board as some sort of retaliation.
First: Peter Padfield DID report to me that relevant issues he had touched in that documentary had somehow been deleted and I DO recall his frustration over that. This is the truth! I had no reason to doubt his words and I find it unprofessional for a scientist to doubt the integrity of a marine writer whose number of books on numerous aspects of history at sea is simply impressive. The man deserves utter respect for his many achievements. Especially from you. I pointed out your site about Titanic's possible pre-1985 discovery to him and he read it with keen interest. Can I attribute your remark about him to inexperience?
Second: In a private email to you about two years ago I gave you my website address in confidence with the words that I intended to delete some outdated material (including references to some people that are possibly your friends), add new stuff and what not in due course and not hand it out to others. Well, see how you retaliate. "It is such a shame that an educated man has to resort to such childish behaviour" is said elsewhere about you and I cannot but agree. And you lecture me about "tactics"?
My point in exposing great dishonesty on the part of Leslie Reade and immense copyright infringement by his Dutch editor is simply to dismiss credibility of their book 'The Ship That Stood Still' as the final word on the issue. It IS a pile of turgid rubbish and has been given far too much attention on this thread by some die-hards who treat it like gospel. People who twist matters and write down outright lies (they knew precisely what they were doing) and cheat all along without blinking their eyes should never be allowed to pass judgement on Captain Lord. What I said about De Groot is based on personal experience and intricate research into what he stole precisely. Large-scale copyright infringement IS a criminal offence, Paul, also in your country, and in the U.S., and cannot be dismissed as 'naughtiness' like you do. You are ill-informed, Paul! Almost two dozen books and 300 photographs that were misappropriated is no sinecure. It is therefore reprehensible that both Reade and De Groot should be the chosen people on this planet to accuse Captain Lord of lying through his teeth. Moreover, the latter's knowledge of maritime matters is practically nil: in one of his Dutch books he could not even tell port from starboard. People who swallow hook, line and sinker what he and Reade concocted and published are foolish and, yes, I admired Harrison for killing that book as it DID contain stolen intellectual property (1975) and false allegations (1995). I obtained numerous confidential reports from Harrison's solicitors. Furthermore, you probably deliberately misquoted me when I referred to Harrison's attempt to convince Reade of the true course of events and not because it was good publicity for the Lordite cause. After all, Harrison, unlike Reade, was a extra master mariner who knew what he said as he had ALL the facts pertaining to the case at his fingertips. Quote my words correctly, please. I know you can.
Leslie Harrison a liar? Not in the very slightest! I will tell you that he hated cheating and during the many years we corresponded I never caught him doing so. People who disagree with his conclusions try to discredit his achievements by saying that he lied all along. Had they worked with him, I dare say they would have been in awe of his knowledge and integrity. I am not exaggerating, and will, therefore, defend his integrity and legacy until my dying day. You also exchanged letters with him, Paul, albeit briefly, and I seriously doubt that Leslie Harrison fell out with you for some reason or suddenly decided to treat you with contempt to deserve your deplorable treatment of him now. I knew the man too well and can assure you that he would never have let you down.
Walter Lord's role in this aspect certainly deserves reconsideration. A celebrated author should not have associated himself with criminals for decades, yet Lord, Reade and De Groot were close friends. Walter Lord was told that his books had been plagiarized, and I was informed that he was very angry. However, the matter was cast aside for a higher goal: Publication of Reade's book. Financial issues certainly prevented rewriting of 'A Night to Remember' and would rip the heart out of both book and film.
I have been reading this site for years, studying the whole issue since 1974, I knew both Harrison and Padfield - and I have become increasingly irritated at your attitude and behaviour towards really good people, Paul. Moreover, you accuse me of bad research. Like you, I can boast a university degree, and I also learned the trade there.
This thread is about 'The Titanic and the Mystery Ship', not whether you are miffed about Senan Molony's dismissal of your past arguments with him. That is childish, the same as not buying the book is childish - just as you were accused of extreme childishness on another forum in relation to ghosts...
You want to leave personalities out of it now? Fine! Look at what independent customers who DID buy this book are saying about it. There are two reviews here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Titanic-Mystery-Ship/dp/0752437437/sr=8-5/qid=1157713984/ref=sr_1_5/202-4599629-0632612?ie=UTF8&s=gateway.
In fact, one of them was a committed anti-Lordite!
I also object to Michael's observation that "Captain Lord's conduct and character is fair game for all points good or bad" here. His misfortune is no cause for amusement. He was the man on the spot who made the right decisions. That he obtained his extra master's certificate and captaincy at an exceptionally early age and knew exactly what he was doing has steadfastly been ignored by his opponents on this board.
Captain Lord's conduct was exemplary, quite unlike that of many of his main critics.
Cordially,
Rob |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1225
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 12:36 am: |
|
Rob:
What does Lord obtaining his license and captaincy at an early age, have to do with his actions the night of April 14 and 15? Not a damn thing! He could have won the Nobel Prize, but so what?
His actions or inactions, and that of his officers that night are the subject of this site.
Bill
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10864
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 6:25 am: |
|
>>I also object to Michael's observation that "Captain Lord's conduct and character is fair game for all points good or bad" here.<<
You can object all you like but in matter of historical discussion and research, that's just the way it goes.
Whatever his accomplishments during his life, what's at issue here are Captain Lord's asserted actions and/or inactions on the night of 14 to 15 April 1912 and how he conducted himself ex post facto to that. His defenders and critics alike have an equal voice in this...and in fairness...the same obligation to present their evidence to back it up as well as respond to any criticisms of same with rebuttals that are on point and relevant to that.
The champions of either side may be candidates for sainthood or eternal damnation for all I care, but what matters are the claims made and what evidence they have to support it. Ad hominum attacks just don't make or break anybody's case.
>>I for one, won't buy Molony's book based on his nasty attitude on this forum. <<
Sorry I missed this earlier. Paul, whatever you think of Senan personally, I think you're short changing yourself if you don't get a copy of this book. It really does make a good case for the defense. Whether I agree with it on all points makes no difference to the fact that he can make a case.
While my own interest in the Californian is a tertiary matter to me, ( I'm of the opinion that the whole Californain mess is a distraction from the more pressing issues of the Titanic's mismanagement which are the core reasons for her loss) I have a copy of every book written by any author on either side of this debate. The reason for this is sometime in the future, I may end up taking a greater interest. If I'm going to comment on any of their work...Gittens, Harrison, Molony, Peadfield, Reade, whoever...it helps me to know what they really said in their own words.
In matters as controversial as this, it's simply a matter of knowing what the arguements actually are.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1671
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Michael, I agree wholeheartedly.
Going back to Padfield briefly: it seems that Leslie Reade was supposed to be the first person to view the 1912 Titanic Inquiry documents. When he got to the offices where the papers were held, Padfield had already turned up and was rifling through the boxes. When they found Gerard Jensen's letter (which set in motion the BoT inquiry), Reade was interested, but Padfield dismissed it, saying "Ha ha! What a great hoax!" |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1672
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Alright, Rob, if you did send me the website address a few years back, I apologise. I have been through a few changes of PC, and I didn't keep the email. I found your website on lycos a few months back.
I stopped communicating with Harrison simply for the reason that I was going to University and was just too busy to write to him. In total, my correspondence with him lasted from c.1988 to about 1991. We discussed some of the technical matters of the Californian matter, and I found that some of his assertions were demonstrably WRONG. Yet, when I asked him about these, he simply repeated his old research (such as the last rocket being fired before boat 13 being lowered, the heading of the Titanic etc. etc etc) I was suspisious of this, butt I thought "lets disagree agreeably". When I read George Behe's website about other manipulations of the evidence, I was taken aback.
Going through the Walter Lord correspondence with Harrison, the two wrote to each other and the communications were cordial, but with neither side backing down. Yes, both were polite, but Harrison's were slightly antagonistic. Lord closed off one round of correspondence saying something like "in future years, when my papers have been bequeathed to the Mariner's Museum [sic], future generations will be able to judge".
Let us not forget that Harrison's first duty was to act as a proponent for Captain Lord. A defence council if you like. To that end, and bearing that in mind, his writings are acceptable. But if you want an objective discussion of Lord's inaction on April 14th, Harrison's writings are not the place to look. Neither are Reade's writings, who is obsessed with a hatred of Harrison and Lordites in general. The closest I have seen to an opinion-free evaluation is Dave Gittin's ebook. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1673
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Incidentally, Mr.Kamps, for your information, I am hoping to obtain a transcript of the Padfield TV show to find out what was said and by whom.
I don't care whether DeGroot and Reade are criminals - they could be the Jack the Ripper for all I care. What I was interested in is whether the case they made is better than Harrison et al. - and for me, trhey did. Their personalities, vile or otherwise is totally irrelevant.
"My point in exposing great dishonesty on the part of Leslie Reade and immense copyright infringement by his Dutch editor is simply to dismiss credibility of their book 'The Ship That Stood Still' as the final word on the issue."
So, they broke copyright laws. So what? That is IRRELEVANT to the contents of the book and research it contains.
"It IS a pile of turgid rubbish and has been given far too much attention on this thread by some die-hards who treat it like gospel."
Why is it turgid rubbish? Is it because it contains conclusions that you disagree with? The anti-Harrison content is disgusting, in my opinion, but the main points are OK.
"Furthermore, you probably deliberately misquoted me when I referred to Harrison's attempt to convince Reade of the true course of events and not because it was good publicity for the Lordite cause. After all, Harrison, unlike Reade, was a extra master mariner who knew what he said as he had ALL the facts pertaining to the case at his fingertips. Quote my words correctly, please. I know you can."
WHAT did I misquote? The line about "killing the book" is a genuine Harrison quote. I simply do not understand what you have written above.
"and I have become increasingly irritated at your attitude and behaviour towards really good people, Paul."
Like whom? Please clarify, Mr.Kamps. I admit that I have no time for Molony. I also have serious problems with Captain Collins. Thats two people out of the many hundreds who have joined this board. I see no proof of your spiteful snide comment. Just more bald statements, backed up by nebulous evidence.
Other matters preclude me from buying Molony's book, not just my personal dislike for the author. For one thing, it rehashes the same old arguments. For another matter, I had already bought "A Ship Accused", and wasn't too impressed by it. Thirdly, I have in the past bought Molony's other books - "The Irish aboard Titanic" (which was excellent) and his thesis on the culpability of the Mount Temple, which I found interesting, but not proven. The Californian matter is a near 100 year old debate and all we rely on are the same transcripts of hearings and inquiries, subject to the spin of individual authors. My feelings for Molony are just one of the factors in this equation.
"However, the matter was cast aside for a higher goal: Publication of Reade's book. Financial issues certainly prevented rewriting of 'A Night to Remember' and would rip the heart out of both book and film."
Do you have proof of this? I could always go to the National Maritime Museum and check on this for you.
"Moreover, you accuse me of bad research. "
Did I?
And please leave my dealings with Ghosts-UK out of this. You have no idea what really went on behind the scenes, only the insults of injured parties who went out of their way to discredit me. Yes, I did seek legal advise and information from solicitors closed down their nasty debates for a while. I was not the only one to be suspicious of the group's activities - do you object to their conduct too? One of the detractors is now a bit of a TV celebrity and left after finding out, from the inside (he was a committee member) that the group was on the make. If you want, you can email him. His name is Mark Webb - www.mark-webb.com (or .co.uk) if you want. Or email Steve Paton at the Biritish Paranormal Alliance and ask him. Or askGeorge Lowe of Shanry. Or any other person I could name/ Or if you want to know what happened, look at my website:
http://www.btinternet.com/~dr_paul_lee/vigils.htm#guk
Why bring up irrelevancy - unless its a veiled personal attack. Which it was. WHEN DID I *EVER* INSULT YOU? Why did you resort to a spiteful, childish attack when I had never said anything nasty about you, or to you? That says more about YOUR personality, SIr, than any vituperative attack on authors on your website. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 138
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 7:48 pm: |
|
Bill wrote:
>His actions or inactions, and that of his >officers that night are the subject of this site.
Bill, you're absolutely right, those facts about when Captain Lord received his certificates are irrelevant when examining his actions and inactions that night.
I may get personally attacked for saying so, but I also find it interesting that until Bob decided to take the tone that he has, this thread had been completely civil, which is quite unusual given the subject matter, and had been quite refreshing.
When one has to resort to personal attacks and introducing irrelevant facts to make their case, it really makes one question their objectivity and motives.
I agree with what Michael said, perhaps it is best to return the conversation to the facts. This discussion has been both fascinating and civil and I hope for the benefit of all that it can return to that state.
Kind regards to all,
Tad |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Relating to Paul's statements regarding communications with Leslie Harrison. We also have George Behe's accounts of trying to communicate with Harrison, and trying to ask pertinent questions. See:
http://home.comcast.net/%7Egeorgebehe/titanic/page5.htm
The Harrison contact starts at the bottom of this page, and continues onto page 6 and further.
Bill
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 182
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 10:14 am: |
|
Hiya folks - just back from holiday and I have to say I'm quite worried about the way things are going on this thread. As many another has said, we've had a refreshingly rancour free discussion thus far on what has oft-times before turned into a heated debate that degenerates into accusations.
Let's be careful not go too far down that road again, eh ?
warmest regards
dave |
Amanda Ratliff
Member
Username: mander
Post Number: 105
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Well, I'm off to have emergency sugery on Monday but being diabetic they have to put me in the hospital 24 hours prior to stabalize my blood sugar. So I decided to pick up a new book to take to the hospital and the winner was The Titanic and the Mystery Ship! I'm so excied to read it. I've been wanting to pick it up for awhile now but never have. Now if I only had an autographed copy! Shoot! |
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Username: oceanic3
Post Number: 194
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 11:22 am: |
|
All the best for a speedy recovery Amanda.
Cheers
Paul |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Hi Amanda: I know what it means to get those blood sugars stabilized first. Hope all goes well with the surgery. Best of luck and enjoy the read.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11599
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Get better fast, Amanda. I think you'll find the book a worthwhile read for a lot of reasons, whether you agree with the author's position or not. If you want to know what kind of a case could have been made for the defense had Captain Lord ever faced charges, this is the book to read.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jason D. Tiller
Moderator
Username: jtiller
Post Number: 3120
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Best wishes for a fast recovery, Amanda.
"To be happy is to be contented in your own mind"...Harold Godfrey Lowe
43° 0' 39" N, 79° 0' 23" W.
|
Dave Moran
Member
Username: gatchaman
Post Number: 187
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Good luck Amanda - best wishes for an easy recovery |
|
