| Author |
Message |
    
David Billnitzer
Member
Username: dbillnitzer
Post Number: 61
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, December 8, 2002 - 10:28 pm: | 
|
I recently was provided a copy of the book "A Ship Accused" with the understanding that I would provide my thoughts on it. Personally I didn't want to spend money on it, suspecting that the book's contents and arguments would be familiar to those who have followed the online discussions about the Californian over the past several years, and that I would not find anything in the way of new primary material in it, just a rehash of predictable pro-Lord interpretations, based on minute selections from the evidence.
Reading the book did nothing to dispel my initial hesitation. Most of the same pro-Lord arguments (a 12 minute time difference, the Titanic's post collision heading, the Californian's overnight position, and so on), and their flaws, are trotted out yet again. Finally the book seems to lean towards a four-ship theory, more akin to Foweraker's 1912-13 work than to Eno's recent suggestions, for those who are familiar with those pro-Lord attempts.
But the end result is that it's all been done before, and contains the same problems that Foweraker encountered, and Padfield after him, and without an attempt to solve them. A four ship theory collapses quickly if it can't explain how Stone's mystery ship (which was certainly not the Titanic!) suddenly changed her bearings and took those pesky rockets right along with her. Stone had no answer for that at the British Inquiry, Foweraker and Padfield had no answer for it in their theories, and neither does this book. Also, no explanation is attempted at how Stone's mystery ship was able to steam off SW in the dead of night, into the icefield - an attempt which neither the Californian nor the Titanic completed.
There are other flawed uses of the testimony, particularly an exchange between the Virginian and the Californian just as Capt Lord began to move his ship for the morning, and Capt Moore's sighting of the Californian north of the Carpathia at daylight. There is an almost comical attempt to suggest that the Californian *might have* had more speaking tubes from the bridge to below decks, but this section is so ridiculous and contrived, that I won't take any more time on it here. Certainly nothing worth $35.
There's a curious statement early in the book that since Californian was to the north, she would always show her green light, regardless of which way the Titanic herself was heading; this statement is just plain incorrect.
The book also reprints the "Rockets!" article that was already published here on ET.
As I said above, there was nothing new in this book in the way of primary documentation, and much that has already been said before. Those who witnessed or took part in the many discussions about the Californian with the book's author will recognize instantly the same material, his use of it, and his same arguments.
For those who wish to learn more, a better choice for understanding the Californian's involvement in the Titanic disaster is Walter Lord's second book, The Night Lives On, in the chapter "A Certain Amount of Slackness." Walter Lord presents the case factually and as fully as anybody needs to understand it, without having to dive into the testimony and all its contradictory data.
If one does read this book, or Padfield, Harrison, Foweraker among the pro-Lord crowd, or Leslie Reade, Geoffrey Marcus or others among the anti-Lord crowd, hoping for a deeper understanding of the Californian issue, do yourself a favor. Be sure to keep a copy of the US and BR inquiries close at hand, and at the very least, compare the authors' interpretations with the raw data. It's the only way.
Personally, I am back where I started; there are better uses for my money than recycled material such as this.
Dave Billnitzer
|
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 501
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, December 8, 2002 - 11:23 pm: |
|
Hi, Nefarious!
I'm almost finished reading the book and will comment on a few specifics after I've completed it. However (and barring any unexpected surprises at the very end of the book), my assessment of the book agrees with yours.
Just one comment at this point, though. You wrote:
>A four ship theory collapses quickly if it can't >explain how Stone's mystery ship (which was >certainly not the Titanic!) suddenly changed her >bearings and took those pesky rockets right along >with her. Stone had no answer for that at the >British Inquiry, Foweraker and Padfield had no >answer for it in their theories, and neither does >this book.
Well, that isn't quite true, since on page 191 the book does suggest an answer (of sorts) to that problem:
"It has been postulated that the angle of elevation of the rockets could have changed as the Titanic was progressively sinking. It might equally be that Stone continues to link the rockets with the moving ship in his mind."
Personally, I don't see how changing the angle of elevation of the rockets could have made their point of origin appear to move from SSE of the Californian to SW of the Californian.
As for the (Lordite) suggestion that the rockets originated from a point far beyond the mystery ship and that Stone mistakenly *imagined* that those far-distant rockets accompanied the 'fleeing' mystery ship laterally along the Californian's horizon and SW through the icefield . . . Well, I think the book's suggested explanation is far more imaginative than Second Officer Stone ever was.
More soon.
All my best,
George |
David Billnitzer
Member
Username: dbillnitzer
Post Number: 62
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 9, 2002 - 4:19 am: |
|
Hi George!
Good point, perhaps I should have pointed out that Senan's book does mention the "changing elevation of the rockets" theory. It has been done before, in Diana Bristow's book ("Sinking the Myths," p 172-173), and because of that, I simply wrote it off as another of his recycled ideas. If I tried to enumerate all of his recycled material, we'd be here for quite a while. ;-)
Dave Billnitzer
|
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 502
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Monday, December 9, 2002 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Hi, Nefarious!
I've noticed an interesting example of selectivity in the presentation of evidence that appears on page 92 of the book. Specifically, it occurs where the author discusses the characteristic appearance of distress rockets, and he opens the discussion with Apprentice Gibson's description of the mystery ship's rockets:
Gibson: I then got the binoculars and had just got them focussed on the vessel when I observed a white flash apparently on her deck, followed by a faint streak towards the sky which then burst into white stars."
However, the author then presents a statement by Second Officer Lightoller which claims that the Titanic's distress rockets did *not* leave luminous trails behind them as they ascended into the sky. The author also quotes Second Officer Stone's statement that he did not see any trails left by the rockets that appeared over the Californian's mystery ship. (This was done in an attempt to discredit Gibson's observation of visible rocket trails -- which would similarly discredit Gibson's sighting of a flash of light on the deck of the nearby mystery ship as the rocket was fired.)
Interestingly, although the book's author relies very heavily on Fourth Officer Boxhall's testimony throughout the rest of the book, page 92 makes absolutely no mention of Boxhall's own description of the distress rockets that he fired from the Titanic that night:
BR15397: Can you describe what the effect of those rockets is in the sky; what do they do?
Boxhall: You see a luminous tail behind them and then they explode in the air and burst into stars.
Boxhall's testimony on the subject obviously does not fit in with the author's premise that the distress rockets seen by the Californian originated *far* beyond the nearby 'mystery ship' that lay SSE of the Californian.
All my best,
George
|
David Billnitzer
Member
Username: dbillnitzer
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 12:45 am: |
|
Hi George:
Well, you're going to find plenty more just like that one, trust me! But I don't want to spoil it for you. Oh, well, maybe just one: did you notice the caption under the picture of Gibson on p91? For those who haven't had a chance, here is what it says:
"James Gibson, of the Californian, circa 1920. His tales in the witness box of a nearby 'tramp steamer' seeming to list to starboard bore little relation to the situation on board the world's largest ship, the Titanic, which would suffer a severe list to her PORT side prior to sinking." (emphasis in original)
The accompanying text on p91 lists a number of Titanic survivors who described a list to port, but not a single example from those who described a list to starboard. Hmm.
Why does this book remind me so much of an incident from my high school math class? One of my fellow students once asked the teacher if he would show us the famous "proof" that 1+1 does not equal 2. The teacher, normally agreeable to wasting time now and then, looked very seriously at us, and said, "Is that a useful exercise? And even if I 'proved' it to you, would you be convinced enough to believe it?"
His warning to watch out for logic tricks comes back so vividly while reading this book.
Dave Billnitzer
|
John M. Feeney
Member
Username: jmfeeney
Post Number: 849
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Dave relayed: "James Gibson, of the Californian, circa 1920. His tales in the witness box of a nearby 'tramp steamer' seeming to list to starboard bore little relation to the situation on board the world's largest ship, the Titanic, which would suffer a severe list to her PORT side prior to sinking." (emphasis in original)
O H , M Y G O D ! ! Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that I could spend over a third of a hundred bucks far more wisely! (Like, perhaps, for a winter supply of "Cheez Doodles".) ;^)
Of course, I suspected as much.
I have to wonder: If Harrison were still alive, would he sue for copyright infringement? Since Molony -- presumably working in isolation -- seems to have produced many of the same old, tired arguments, employing the same highly selective methods of evidence presentation coupled with the most fanciful of wishful interpretations, it does seem a possibility.
I can't believe that "old saw" -- the allegedly static list of the ship -- has once again been trotted out as a potential indictment! (Plus, does it occur to others here that *any* list readily observable from the Californian's reported distance of 5 to 7 miles would be indicative of a ship truly in trouble, not one merely nonchalantly "steaming away"??)
Even the colorful language of implication employed in that caption is heavily reminiscent of earlier staunchly Lordite authors, who've had no qualms whatsoever about depicting Lord's "detractors" in the most unfavorable of lights while paying disproportionate homage to any witness or bit of testimony that seemed to vindicate him.
("Tales in the witness box"?? Cripes, talk about shameless innuendo!)
Dave and George, thanks VERY much for those reviews. Since Dave refers to a recycling of that "Rockets" article originally published here on ET, I can readily see (from first-hand exposure) that the same unbalanced presentations of testimony and minute dissections of those excerpts, followed by fancifully optimistic (or even occasionally deluded) "broad brush" interpretations of same, are likely to manifest throughout the book. No doubt a profuse sprinkling of pseudo-analytical phrases like "This may indicate" and "One is tempted to believe", coupled with the occasional, invariably erroneous assertion of "This can only mean", leads up to an inevitable "punch line" -- that those many divergent, whimsical conjectures somehow add up to a gaping chasm revealed in the "standard view". To wit, a remarkably fragile dwelling is built upon shifting sands, then euphemistically dubbed "Sandstone Castle".
No, thanks. I'll keep my money in my pocket.
Cheers,
John |
John M. Feeney
Member
Username: jmfeeney
Post Number: 850
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 6:56 pm: |
|
George wrote: Interestingly, although the book's author relies very heavily on Fourth Officer Boxhall's testimony throughout the rest of the book, page 92 makes absolutely no mention of Boxhall's own description of the distress rockets that he fired from the Titanic that night:
BR15397: Can you describe what the effect of those rockets is in the sky; what do they do?
Boxhall: You see a luminous tail behind them and then they explode in the air and burst into stars.
George: Gee, there appear to be an *awful* lot of "accidental" oversights and omissions in this book already. You don't, by any chance, think this might be indicative of some subtle form of bias in favor of Captain Lord, do you?
[Suggested answer: "No, I don't think it would be indicative of a *subtle* form at all."] ;^)
Yes, this is looking ever more like the "convincing argument" that the Ten Commandments actually prescribe "Kill." All you need to do to clarify this point for the casual reader is simply leave out those confusing "Thou shalt not"s!
Regards,
John |
David Billnitzer
Member
Username: dbillnitzer
Post Number: 64
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hi John:
Here is one more example of that same technique; readers can decide what the author is doing here...
As we all know, Capt Lord was notified of the rockets three different times, first by Stone via the speaking tube, then by Gibson in person, and for the third time by Stone again via the speaking tube. In their various forms of evidence, Stone and Gibson specifically said Capt Lord was in the chartroom, not asleep in his own bunk in his cabin. And for Capt Lord to answer the two calls from Stone, Lord had to get up, walk from the chartroom into his own room to answer the speaking tube, carry on a conversation, and then go back to the chartroom again:
Stone's affidavit, re: the first call on the speaking tube:
"Between then and about 1:15 I observed three more the same as before, and all white in colour. I, at once, whistled down the speaking tube and you came from the chartroom into your own room and answered."
Clear, yes? Lord came from the chartroom in to his own room.
Gibson's affidavit, the second notification which took place in person:
"I then went down below to the chartroom and called the Captain and told him and he asked me if there were any colors in the rockets. I told him that they were all white. He then asked me what time it was and I went on the bridge and told the Second Officer what the Captain had said."
And at the BR Inq:
7553. Did you report that to the Captain?-Yes.
7554. Where did you go?-Into the chartroom.
7555. Was the chart-room door shut?-Yes.
7556. Did you open the door and go in?-Yes.
7557. Did you find the Captain there?-Yes.
7558. Did you speak to him?-Yes.
7559. Did you give him the report you were ordered to give him?-Yes.
7560. What did the Captain say?-He asked me were they all white?
7561. The rockets?-Yes, were there any colours in the rockets at all?
7562. What did you tell him?-I told him that they were all white.
7563. Did he give any instructions?-No.
7564. Did he say anything further?-He asked me the time.
7565. What was the time?-Five minutes past two by the wheelhouse clock.
7566. You told him that, did you?-Yes.
7567. Did he ask you anything further?-No.
7568. Or tell you anything further?-No.
7569. And did you go away?-Yes.
7570. (The Commissioner.) Was he awake?-Yes, Sir.
Again, Gibson went inside the chartroom and found Lord, awake.
The third notification, Stone calls on the speaking tube again - from his affidavit:
"At 2:45 I again whistled down again..."
And from his testimony:
7976. I beg your pardon. Twenty minutes later you reported to the Captain. How ?-About 2.40 by means of the whistle tube. I blew down again to the Master; he came and answered it and asked what it was.
Again, Capt Lord "came and answered it." In all three cases, the evidence tells us that Capt Lord was in the chartroom when he was notified. To answer Stone's two calls he had to get up, walk into a different room and answer, and Gibson specifically said the Captain was awake.
But how does this book treat the episode? p120:
"Lord's evidence to the US Inquiry **may also suggest** [there's that phrase again! - DB] that the speaking tube was close at hand to where he was lying down...
"But we simply don't know about the dispersal of speaking tubes (own room or chartroom? Or both?), and the Californian is now lying at the bottom of the Mediterranean beyond any easy inspection...
"Yet the overall thrust of the evidence suggests [there's that word again - DB] a tube was in close proximity to Capt Lord throughout...
and in case these suggestions still don't persuade you,
"Let us consider the matter rather in a practical everyday manner --
"Who, owning a bedside phone and no other, but expecting a call in the night, would choose to lie down on a settee outside that room? It seems extraordinary. Similarly, if the Californian's room had no voice tube, then it seems extraordinary again...."
Hmm.
Dave Billnitzer
|
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 504
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 1:14 am: |
|
Hi, Dave and John!
Here are a few more that jumped out at me:
* The book goes to great lengths to 'prove' that the Californian's mystery ship steamed *eastward* (with her broadside fully exposed to the Californian) before she finally turned toward the SW and steamed away in that direction. The book, however, makes no mention of Apprentice Gibson's testimony on this subject; Gibson said that the Californian's mystery ship was pointed north of NNW, that the Californian was viewing her obliquely (from almost bow-on), that he never saw the mystery ship turn around to face the SW and that he never saw her display her stern light while (supposedly) steaming away in that direction. (Of course, all of these observations fit the Titanic's situation to a tee.)
* The book repeatedly quotes Second Officer Stone's alleged sighting of the mystery ship's stern light as she supposedly 'steamed away' to the SW. However, the reader is never told that Second Officer Stone was not *positive* that the light he was viewing was actually a stern light:
BR8100 Stone: "The last light I saw must have been her stern light. It may have been the light at the end of an alleyway, or some bright light on deck."
Nor - again - is the reader made privy to Apprentice Gibson's testimony on the subject:
BR7630: Did you ever see anything which you took for her stern light?
Apprentice Gibson: No.
* The book claims that the Californian's mystery ship steamed away and 'disappeared' in the SW. However (and in a completely different context) the book also acknowledges (p. 157, 171) that the main icefield (which extended *far* south of the mystery ship's position) was impassable during the hours of darkness. That being the case, how was the mystery ship able to traverse the miles-wide icefield that blocked her (supposed) path to the SW? (The book doesn't say.)
* The book mentions that at 6:10 a.m. the Californian told the Virginian that she "can now see Carpathia taking passengers on board from small boats." However, the book then claims that the above wireless message was actually sent at 6:10 a.m. *NEW YORK* Time -- which (if true) would have been close to 8 a.m. Californian Time.
If the book had seen fit to tell its readers about Captain Gambell's listing of the wireless messages sent and received by the Virginian that morning, though, the reader would know that Gambell specifically used Virginian *SHIP'S* time while quoting all of those messages. (Virginian ship's time was 1 hr 30 min AHEAD of New York Time and 20 min BEHIND Californian Time.)
Bearing this in mind, Captain Gambell said that at 5:45 a.m. Virginian Time (6:05 a.m. Californian Time) the Californian told Virginian that she was 15 miles from the Titanic's CQD position. (This at first sounds good for Captain Lord.) However, just 25 minutes later (at 6:10 a.m. Virginian Time, 6:30 a.m. Californian Time) Captain Gambell sent the following message to the Californian:
Virginian: "Kindly let me know condition of affairs when you get to Titanic."
[Captain Gambell said that the Californian *IMMEDIATELY* responded by saying:]
Californian: "Can now see Carpathia taking passengers on board from small boats. Titanic foundered about 2 a.m."
In other words, at 6:30 a.m. (*CALIFORNIAN* Time) the Californian was already close enough to the disaster site to see the Carpathia picking up the Titanic's lifeboats.
------------------
As ET members have seen, the book in question avoids presenting some rather crucial evidence to its readers (and *many* similar examples of such avoidance could be cited.) It would seem rather difficult for readers to be able to construct an *informed* opinion about the Californian controversy in the face of the huge limitations imposed by books of this kind.
Rather than continue to beat a thoroughly dead horse, though, I will merely advise everyone here to keep the two government inquiries close at hand while reading this book -- you *definitely* won't be sorry you had access to the original evidence in its 'unfiltered' state.
I'll close with a quote that I ran across this morning:
"And for to passe the tyme thys book shal be plesaunte to rede in, but for to gyve fayth and byleve that al is trewe that is conteyned herein, ye be at your lyberte...."
(Caxton's preface to Malory)
All my best,
George
|
Colleen Collier
Member
Username: colleen
Post Number: 974
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 7:59 am: |
|
>>>And for to passe the tyme thys book shal be plesaunte to rede in, but for to gyve fayth and byleve that al is trewe that is conteyned herein, ye be at your lyberte.<<< Yes, I got a similar email from Geoff. 
Colleen
|
Daniel Klistorner
Member
Username: danielr
Post Number: 781
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 8:18 am: |
|
If Ship Accused is flawed, than Reade's book is no less so.
---
I want to make a general comment about bias, but I thought that John's quote sums up most of it pretty well:
Gee, there appear to be an *awful* lot of "accidental" oversights and omissions in this book already. You don't, by any chance, think this might be indicative of some subtle form of bias in favor of Captain Lord, do you?
And this of course is assuming that Reade is absolutely infallible? Of course not much has been said about Reade's work, but lack of dragging his work through the dirt suggests high regard for his work. Do you all not possibly think that Reade too was extremely selective about the evidence he presents?
I read Reade before I read any Lordite book, and to me it seems that Reade is twisting evidence. Reade himself is very selective in order to present his anti-Lordite position.
Of course this anti and pro-Lordite situation may naturally produce bias to their respective sides, but you treat Senan's book and other pro-Lordite books as they're the only evil authors to develop bias in their book. As I said before, Reade does it very extensively as well.
Regarding the starboard side situation, you can't just throw Sen's caption in the bin. Titanic listed to starboard only at the beginning of her sinking, when the starboard side initially begins to take on water. A few passengers remarked that despite the Titanic having a list to port on Sunday, she was listing to starboard at the beginning of her sinking. Soon after that she began to list to port. That's what Sen is talking about, at the point when Gibson was seeing his ship list to starboard, Titanic at that time was listing to port.
If Harrison were still alive, would he sue for copyright infringement?
Not Sen anyway. I can't say much at the moment, but let me tell you that Reade's work was far from infallible as you might think. Anyone heard of de Groot?
A question I wanted to ask. Leslie Harrison had extensive marine experience, and was held in very high regard. He knew about the sea and navigation, no pro or anti-Lordite can deny that. Reade was a lawyer, no marine experience, and most of us have no marine experience either. How can anyone in the latter position downgrade Harrison so much. Wouldn’t it be natural that a man with extensive marine experience knows more about the sea and navigation?
All Californian aside, all I’m trying to ask about here is Harrison’s reputation. How can we claim that Harrison who was highly regarded at sea and certainly knew a lot about it is the worse one to assess the Californian story? I respect that Reade was a lawyer, but he had no marine experience.
This also bring me to Sen. A few people questioned his assessment of evidence. Sen’s assessments don’t jus come out of his ****. He has been covering court cases for 20 years, I would assume he has at least some credence to what he assesses about the 1912 evidence.
My point is, that this is not evolving to be a discussion about evidence and what may be more correct etc. We’re going into bashing the people and downgrading their intelligence (I am referring to a few threads about the Californian).
Daniel. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 5050
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 8:54 am: |
|
Objectively speaking, Daniel, you have a point. The bashing of the personalities does get tiresome, but in this controversy, it just seems to go with the territory. (It's one of the reasons I dislike dealing with it anymore.) However, let's not forget that Harrison's credentials notwithstanding, he did present his case from the point of view of an advocate, not an objective historian. He made no pretense otherwise as far as I know.
When you get right down to it, you have to treat any such writings with caution regardless of the sentiments of the writer. By all means, get ahold of what was written by those who have weighed in on this so that you know what their arguements are. However, one's best bet, IMO, is to go to the transcripts first.
After that, as Master Yoda would say, "You're own counsel keep on whom you believe."
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Daniel Klistorner
Member
Username: danielr
Post Number: 783
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 9:18 am: |
|
Mike,
However, let's not forget that Harrison's credentials notwithstanding, he did present his case from the point of view of an advocate, not an objective historian. He made no pretense otherwise as far as I know.
You're right, of course as I said each side of course favours their story -- both Lordite and anti-Lordite sides are bias -- I do not deny this. I just wasn't too comfortable how the Molony and other Lordite books were being accused as being bias when the anti-Lordite books do the very same thing no less. Even this discussion is selecting only the evidence that favours their story, and ignores the evidence that favours the Lordite story. We all do it; there is no deed to point the finger at the other side.
Daniel. |
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 507
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 10:39 am: |
|
Hi, Daniel!
> Even this discussion is selecting only the >evidence that favours their story,
>
That's perfectly true. I've been providing ET members with crucial evidence which is *absent* from the book, since it is the very *absence* of that crucial evidence which comprises the "Flaws" which this thread is specifically devoted to discussing.
Reade's book undoubtedly has flaws of its own, though, and anyone wishing to discuss those flaws might want to consider creating a thread devoted specifically to that purpose (since that subject is out of place in this thread.)
All my best,
George |
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 508
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 11:15 am: |
|
Hi, Colleen!
>Yes, I got a similar email from Geoff.
Isn't it great when Geoff starts speechifying in "Olde Englishe?' (Brings a tear of joy to my eye....) :-)
Take care, Colleen (and let me know how things go at you-know-what.) :-)
All my best,
George |
Michael Tennaro
Member
Username: tennaro
Post Number: 317
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 7:56 pm: |
|
it has always been striking to me that the issue of the Californian seems to bring out the extremist in so many people, and from both sides of the debate. it is a shame, as this accomplishes nothing but muddy the waters in a subject that is already difficult to pin down because all the facts grouped together are contradictory in the first place. the fact that there are two armed camps slinging barbs endlessly back and forth only underscores to me that the only truth is that we don't have enough evidence to prove the issue one way or the other. how else can we explain 90+ years of confrontation on this subject. if the facts were really as clear as each side would have us believe, the debate would have ended a long time ago.
anyone can take any of the books on this subject, and armed with the inquiries (themselves a mishmash of contradiction) nitpick any of these books to shreds. but I fail to see how that furthers the study of this subject.
my approach has always been to try and find the best in all the works on this subject, rather than the worst. I have read the inquiries, and all the major and minor books on this subject. I have found flaws in every work, but I have also learned useful information from all these sources, and from both sides of the debate. I encourage anyone with an open mind to read as many of these works as they can get their hands on. each adds useful pieces to the puzzle that will help you make up your own mind about the thorny issue of the case of the Californian.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T |
Dan Cherry
Member
Username: dcherry
Post Number: 320
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 9:21 pm: |
|
Michael,
good points...
I, too, attempt to find the best in literary works surrounding this matter. Having read as much as I could on the Titanic and the events surrounding the involvement of the Californian, I consider myself neutral on the whole subject (IOW, I consider myself neither a Lordite nor an anti-Lordite) and look only at the facts.
The facts:
* Titanic sank south of the Californian's position
* Californian crew took interest in a ship south of them
* Titanic shot off rockets that night
* Californian crew members took note of rockets shot off in the direction of Titanic.
* Titanic sank at 2:20+/- a.m.
* Crew members of the Californian noted the ship they were observing disappeared around that hour.
* Captain Lord did not order his wireless operator to fire up his apparatus during the night and inquire about the rocket situation. To an observer in 2002, this would be the prudent thing to do. To Lord, his interpretation of what he was told about the signals did not merit otherwise.
* When morning came and the Californian heard about the foundering, Lord navigated as best as he could to the the scene.
My opinion: IF Lord had Evans fire up the wireless when the first rocket was spotted, Californian would not have made a difference in the rescue of those in the water. The ship simply would likely have been the first on the scene and picked up the survivors in the lifeboats. Lord’s ability to navigate through the ice at dawn vs. during the night cannot be ascertained. Ice floe shifting between midnight and dawn may or may not have allowed for the ship to navigate faster or slower through the ice to the Titanic wreck site.
As for determining how far apart the two ships were: Looking for the Californian's lost tariff log on the ocean floor would be like looking for a needle in a stack of needles in a huge haystack, but would be the only way in 2002 to establish just how far away the Californian was from Titanic that night.
A constructive recreation of any event, despite the best intentions, cannot always be written objectively, because the author has the benefit of hindsight on the whole matter. Any author seeking to write about the ‘Californian incident’ would be attempting to get inside the head of a man dead for 40 years. One cannot know Lord’s true intentions, and though actions speak volumes, it is not the complete story. Always, the objective should be to seek the truth/facts, no matter if the outcome suits what one originally set out to accomplish. I’ve had ideas before on how something transpired, and come to find out it didn’t happen the way I ‘envisioned’. I had a book I had to literally tear apart and re-write because I had one bad piece of information. My responsibility to stay true to history was to do that. It wasn’t the easiest route to take, but it had to be done. The literary work has to be based on tangible evidence and constructive, responsible reasoning. Present the facts as they are. Nothing does a dis-service to history more than presenting any given event intertwined with pure fiction or biased drivel. |
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 509
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Hi, Michael!
I agree with your final statement. However, one of your initial ET postings about the book made the following statement:
>...the one observation I would make is that >Senan's book does demand a knowledgeable reader. >you need to know the pros and cons of this >debate.
I completely agree with your *very* important statement -- for the simple reason that an *unknowledgeable* reader has no idea whether or not the book has failed to present crucial evidence to its audience (as has indeed happened in the present case.)
It must be admitted that a book that fails to present crucial historical evidence to its readers can very easily skew an unwary reader's perspective on *any* historical subject. That is why Dave Billnitzer, Dave Gittins, John Feeney and I have been detailing some of the present book's most crucial omissions -- omissions that most other readers seem to be unaware of.
I, for one, am very grateful to Dave, Dave and John for trying to help folks who might otherwise remain completely unaware of how much they still don't know about the Californian controversy (even *after* they've read the present book.)
All my best,
George
|
John M. Feeney
Member
Username: jmfeeney
Post Number: 852
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Daniel: I think the attempt at a lengthy Socratic approach above is fairly misplaced. Most of the questions you raise seem either wildly obscure or without basis in the absence of any substantiation of their intent. (For instance, yes, I've heard of Mister DeGroot; your point??)
Moreover, I agree wholeheartedly with George's observation that this particular thread is dealing -- quite substantially, I might add -- with the inherent weaknesses in *Molony's* book. If you'd like to point out the glaring omissions of evidence you feel are symptomatic of Reade's book, by all means open a relevant thread on that. In any case, it's a weak ploy for redemption that would merely claim, "Well, he did it too!"; two wrongs don't make a right! (Besides, you haven't yet demonstrated *any* of the "wrongs" you ascribe to Reade's work, while the demonstrations set forth in *this* thread are already quite meaty!)
Personally, I concur with Mike here. Reade's tome is *far* more balanced in its presentation and treatment of the evidence. (Much of the book, in fact, takes the form of *deliberate* redress of the conspicuous flaws and omissions in Harrison's arguments "for the defense"; so obviously both sides are presented in the context of *those* refutations.) Harrison, on the other hand, was certainly never above the use of of one-sided arguments based on partial evidence only, which necessarily failed to address significant contradictions found in the testimony. Nor was he reluctant to raise mere technicalities pertaining to minute details alone, in hopes of thus ultimately undermining the "big picture".
But apparently the same applies to Molony's work, as has now been aptly illustrated several times over. So my "Ten Commandments" analogy, I think, is entirely appropriate. I object strongly to *anyone* who would spoon-feed me just the "parts" he'd like me to see, while discarding or glossing over more damning evidence. I've had the identical reaction to books well outside the scope of the Californian. It's just that I don't appreciate being "led by the nose".
But by all means, do open a Reade thread. I'd love to see your observations, especially since I don't share your view that there's glaring bias exhibited in the presentation there.
Cheers,
John |
John M. Feeney
Member
Username: jmfeeney
Post Number: 853
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Dan wrote: I had a book I had to literally tear apart and re-write because I had one bad piece of information. My responsibility to stay true to history was to do that. It wasn’t the easiest route to take, but it had to be done. The literary work has to be based on tangible evidence and constructive, responsible reasoning. Present the facts as they are. Nothing does a dis-service to history more than presenting any given event intertwined with pure fiction or biased drivel.
Dan: Hear, hear! My hat's definitely off to you in that undoubtedly painful, but impeccably scholarly, approach you chose. On a much smaller scale, I've occasionally discarded entire posts that I dedicated a good deal of effort to, once I realized I'd misconstrued an important underpinning.
Obviously we share a common principle. Frankly, I could care less about "winning" or "losing" in any battle of opinions. But a *balanced* presentation and treatment of historical events, based on *all* the pertinent evidence, is critical to any understanding. Apparent contradictions should never be merely swept under the rug in deference to one's personal beliefs. (Certainly, mistakes will always occur, but an overriding commitment to objective presentation goes far in reducing the errors provoked by a less disciplined approach that seeks to "prove a point".)
Unfortunately, many of the omissions pointed out thus far in Molony's book -- not to mention its general tenor, replete with lopsided, wishful interpretations and dubious, partisan character assassinations -- leads me to believe that as a source of actual "history", this work ranks with Harrison's book. It may well be thought-provoking, as is, say, Robin Gardiner's. But unless it presents a coherent review and summation based on *all* the available evidence, it remains strictly an "advocacy" piece. And that's something I'm truly leery of, when it comes to genuine assessment of historical events.
Regards,
John |
John M. Feeney
Member
Username: jmfeeney
Post Number: 854
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 12:28 am: |
|
Daniel wrote: My point is, that this is not evolving to be a discussion about evidence and what may be more correct etc. We’re going into bashing the people and downgrading their intelligence (I am referring to a few threads about the Californian).
Daniel: An afterthough on the above. On review of the material posted here so far, I think I can say with assurance that quite the opposite is true. I don't perceive anyone here to be bashing "personalities", myself included; the discussion is not ad hominem, but ad librum!
Now. I'll admit -- it may not always be easy to distinguish warranted criticisms of a book from personal attacks on its author. But in this particular case, the posts speak for themselves. They've consistently addressed the content (and omissions) of the book itself. So I don't think a cry of "foul" is at all appropriate here.
|
John M. Feeney
Member
Username: jmfeeney
Post Number: 855
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 1:23 am: |
|
Dave relayed (from ASA):
"Lord's evidence to the US Inquiry **may also suggest** [there's that phrase again! - DB] that the speaking tube was close at hand to where he was lying down...
"But we simply don't know about the dispersal of speaking tubes (own room or chartroom? Or both?), and the Californian is now lying at the bottom of the Mediterranean beyond any easy inspection...
"Yet the overall thrust of the evidence suggests [there's that word again - DB] a tube was in close proximity to Capt Lord throughout..."
Dave: Sorry, I'd been meaning to get back to you on the above. That *is* a pretty amazing stretch, considering the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Plus, the question fairly leaps forth: "To what avail?" (To suggest that all those "this may suggests" may somehow suggest that in the final analysis Lord might perhaps have been more-or-less unconscious most of the time, maybe??)
Like you (and unlike Molony), I see nothing whatever in the evidence to "suggest" multiple speaking tubes or any "close at hand". Nor do I perceive any *realistic* reason to even ponder this. In fact, the only discernible purpose for making such materially unwarranted speculations would seem to be simply to conjure up, out of thin air, some pretense of a "viable" excuse for Lord's lack of response.
But as you've pointed out, the evidence *repeatedly* indicates Lord's presence in the Chart Room -- Gibson certainly saw him there with his own eyes -- as well as his total inability to "answer the tube" without getting up and walking to his own room. How many times must this unambiguous observation be made before it's accepted??
So I have to admit, on a humorous note, your post reminded me of an old Vaudeville sketch:
"Excuse me sir, you've got a banana in your ear.
"What's that?"
"You've got a banana in your ear!"
"Come again?"
"I said, 'YOU'VE GOT A BANANA IN YOUR EAR!!!'"
"Sorry, I can't hear you; I've got a banana in my ear."
In the example you've provided, it would seem that Vaudeville is still alive and well! |
David Billnitzer
Member
Username: dbillnitzer
Post Number: 66
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 2:29 am: |
|
Hi John:
Yes, you exactly hit upon the point that Senan is trying to make, "some pretense of a 'viable' excuse for Lord's lack of response" as you phrased it. Which brings me to two points.
First, you guessed correctly at what he's trying to do here, which relates to my first reason for not wanting to purchase it (curious as I was to read it): I suspected it was going to be predictable and familiar.
Second: What surprised me about this book was not the selectivity or the treatment of the material. That is what debaters (and laywers!) do; they pick and choose the material that they believe argues their case. This is why before going into deliberation, jurors are told they cannot use lawyers' arguments, or opening and closing statements as evidence when deciding a case, but they must stick to the testimony itself.
So I say, I was expecting that the book would pick and choose its preferred snippets, and it didn't disappoint me there. What surprised me was that on the thread where this book made its debut, it was billed as important and new (although there was no primary material here that wasn't available elsewhere prior to this book's publication), heralded with blurbs from readers who said it made them change their mind about the Californian; it made one person do a 180 deg turnabout; one person thought he had made a convincing case; etc.
That surprised me much more than the book's contents or arguments because it had none of that effect on me. If it had contained newly found information - a diary, a letter, a logbook - yes, I would have taken notice, but to close the book with a forlorn wish that maybe some new data will show up someday to support his four-ship theory... well, what can I say?
I still say as I did in my initial post on this thread. For those who just want an overview of the controversy, stick with Walter Lord's second Titanic book; he really does tell you everything you need to know; but for those who want to get in deep, keep the testimony close at hand.
Dave Billnitzer
|
Dan Cherry
Member
Username: dcherry
Post Number: 321
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Hi, John,
you wrote:
Apparent contradictions should never be merely swept under the rug in deference to one's personal beliefs.
Exactly. It's the mentality rampant in society today. "If I don't like it, I'll rewrite it so it suits me." (Political correctness, anyone?)
In an attempt to stay true to the subjects I wrote about, I presented their viewpoints exactly as they told it, often with contradiction. Here is a classic example in my latest book project: "According to one witness...everyone in the room did XYZ...."
"Mr. X, also present, does not remember anyone being in the room at the moment it exploded."
Is "One witness's" viewpoint any less valid than "Mr. X's", when it is plainly clear that one person remembers the room half full of people and the other recalls it completely empty, save for himself, at the critical moment? I don't have the right to make that ascertation. I must present both recollections as each remembered it and let the reader decide. I never set out to prove a goal-driven point from the moment I typed the first sentence in the first chapter, other than to produce a fair and balanced, factual documentation of an historical event from start to finish. The testimony in itself was dramatic enough. |
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 510
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Hi, all!
I've just noticed a pretty significant contradiction in the book's discussion of the mystery ship's sidelights (a subject which, as is well known, plays an important role in the Californian controversy.)
In describing the order in which the mystery ship's red and green sidelights showed themselves to observers on board the Titanic, Fourth Officer Boxhall's testimony is quoted on page 18 of the book:
"I think I saw the green light before I saw the red light, as a matter of fact."
On page 43, however, the book makes the following claim in BOLD TYPE:
"The Titanic observers saw a red light throughout on their mystery ship."
This claim is repeated on page 44:
"We know the Californian is showing green all the while. And yet it is beyond contradiction that Titanic witnesses saw only red."
It has taken the book just 26 pages to forget all about Boxhall.
All my best,
George
|
David Billnitzer
Member
Username: dbillnitzer
Post Number: 67
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 10:42 pm: |
|
Hi George:
I would add to what you already pointed out; it's in the middle of this, on p43, that this inaccurate statement is made, emphasis in original:
"Because the Californian is to the north, the Titanic, [bold] no matter which way she herself is facing [unbold], will always see the Californian's GREEN light."
Dave Billnitzer
|
David Billnitzer
Member
Username: dbillnitzer
Post Number: 69
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 1:45 am: |
|
Hi all:
There is a chart ("Appendix 4", p 233) in Senan's book where he brings together all of the "Ships Cited In Evidence" (as he captions it), and attempts to place them and their behaviors on a map. He is careful to present a disclaimer, "Sketch is rude chart and not to scale. Times quoted are those pertaining on the relevant observer vessel." I will attempt a short description of its layout:
Standard mapping convention, with N at the top. The ice barrier runs from N to S about one third of the way from the left hand margin. On the left side, ie, to the west of the ice barrier, is the Mt Temple arriving at the SOS position from the SW, having passed a mystery schooner. To the south of the SOS position and the Mt Temple is a "black funnel two-master", and shooting off to the North is the Almerian.
On the east side of the ice barrier, from North to South we have seven different ships:
1. the Californian, stopped at 10.21, pointing more or less NE.
2. immediately south of the CA, a mystery ship, "stops 11.30/11.40, moves 1.15am, departs circa 2.15 am". She spins around in a circle, clockwise, first heading due west, then through north, east, south, and finally departing to the SW, in the direction of the Titanic lifeboats.
3. directly south of the CA's mystery ship is a "yellow funnel unknown vessel, 4 am"
All three of these first ships are close upon the ice barrier, almost right up against it. Now, moving further south and east, we have:
4. the Titanic, impact with the berg near the right hand margin, far to the east of the ice barrier, striking her berg and sinking.
5. Slightly to the northwest of the Titanic, between the Titanic herself and the Californian's mystery ship, we have another "mystery steamer, first seen at 12.30 am, stern light c. 1.40 am." She spins in a wide circle also clockwise, first approaching the Titanic and then cruising around in a half arc. Her tracks disappear after turning around in the direction from which she came, but she seems to be headed off toward the Californian's mystery ship. In fact, their tracks seem as if they might intercept each other eventually.
6. Somewhat to the SW of the Titanic are her lifeboats, much nearer the ice barrier than the Titanic herself, and the Carpathia, having arrived from the SE.
7. Finally, the Carpathia's own "mystery steamer at 3.15 am" which is somewhat south and west of the Carpathia.
It's a crowded ocean out there, all these ships more or less converging on the lifeboats: Mt Temple coming up from the lower left corner, Carpathia coming up from the lower right corner, the Californian's mystery ship coming down the east side of the icefield and toward the lifeboat position before her tracks vanish, the Titanic's mystery ship spinning round in and heading off toward the Californian's mystery ship before *her* tracks also vanish.
And therein lies a clue to the riddle of the four-ship theory. Looking at this chart, it seems possible, with all that nautical sprawl (and major ice, to boot), that the Californian's "nearby" ship (heading SW'ly) eventually collided with the Titanic's "nearby" (heading NW'ly) while both were trying to find an exodus through the ice. KABOOMPF! Of course, both ships would conveniently sink without a trace afterwards, and with no one wondering about them.
Eureka! Mystery solved.
Dave Billnitzer
|
Daniel Klistorner
Member
Username: danielr
Post Number: 796
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 7:24 am: |
|
As much as I want to leave the Californian and Titanic discussions for the moment, George, I thought I'd respond to your post.
The point with the lights there, is although Boxhall did originally see the green light in the very beginning, later on and most of the Titanic's passengers/crew were observing the red light. As Sen points out later on, the Carpathia would not be showing her red light that soon. And if you argue that the ship the Californian was observing off her starboard side was the Titanic, (although seeing a green light at first) why was the red light visible for most of the time?
Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding, but I see no contradiction there.
One other thing, if some of Titanic's boats were pulling for the light of the ship that they saw, how come they never got any closer? Wouldn't that indicate that the ship was moving and steamed away from Titanic ... the Californian meanwhile was stationary and I don’t think it was observed from the Carpathia.
Daniel. |
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 513
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Hi, Daniel!
I'm in Grand Rapids at the moment and am away from my sources, but I'll take a chance and make a quick response.
> As Sen points out later on, the Carpathia would >not be showing her red light that soon.
Working strictly from memory (which, in my case, is a very dangerous thing), :-) at 10:21 p.m. Californian was facing NE. By 2:20 a.m. Californian was facing WSW. That means Californian rotated approx. 200 degrees in a clockwise direction in about 4 hours (which, if this rotation was at a constant rate, comes out to about 50 degrees per hour.) Between 10:21 and 12:20 Californian would therefore have rotated approx. 100 degrees (clockwise) and would have been facing roughly SSE toward the Titanic (which roughly coincides with the time that Boxhall saw both of Cal's sidelights.) The Californian's green starboard sidelight would have disappeared from the Titanic's view well before 1 a.m. (which is approximately the time that many observers on the Titanic reported seeing the Californian's red port sidelight.)
>And if you argue that the ship the Californian >was observing off her starboard side was the >Titanic, (although seeing a green light at >first) why was the red light visible for most of >the time?
IMO because Boxhall saw Californian's green light very shortly before it would have vanished (between 12:30 - 12:45?), which means that Cal's red sidelight was the only one which would have remained visible between roughly 12:45 a.m. and 2:20 a.m. (which would indeed have been 'most of the time.')
Of course, it must be understood that the above timings and headings are only approximate -- but they do answer many more questions than they create. (At any rate, I hope Dave Billnitzer, Dave Gittins and John Feeney will correct any mistakes they might see in my above ramblings.)
>One other thing, if some of Titanic's boats were >pulling for the light of the ship that they saw, >how come they never got any closer? Wouldn't >that indicate that the ship was moving and >steamed away from Titanic ...
IMO, it merely indicates that five or six rowers who attempted to row a lumbering, heavily-loaded lifeboat a total distance of eight or ten miles were completely unequal to the task and that the lifeboats covered far less distance during the night than their crews *thought* they did.
It is unavoidable that both sides of the debate will quibble over details such as lights and headings. However, it is incumbent on Captain Lord's supporters to (1) explain how the Californian's mystery ship traversed the icefield in the dead of night and disappeared in the SW, and (2) explain why the Californian reported to the Virginian that she was within sight of the Carpathia and the lifeboats at 6:30 a.m. Californian Time.
(By the way, Daniel, have you changed your mind about the matter we discussed in our private emails?)
All my best,
George
|
John M. Feeney
Member
Username: jmfeeney
Post Number: 856
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 9:42 pm: |
|
Daniel wrote: One other thing, if some of Titanic's boats were pulling for the light of the ship that they saw, how come they never got any closer?
Daniel: Well, from Molony's chart (which I've now had the opporunity to review, through the kindness of a friend), I'd guess it's because the lifeboats were supposedly going the WRONG way! (Of course, there it's not like they "never got any closer"; it's more like they simply *bypassed* the "mystery ship" entirely, going a different direction at record speed!)
Your question struck a chord, so I went back for a look, and sure enough: Molony puts the Titanic's nearby "mystery ship" -- not to be confused with the Californian, of course -- due *north* of the wreck site, while the lifeboats are depicted significantly WEST of both ships (even for a crude rendering)! It really *looks* as if the occupants of the lifeboats simply decided to *ignore* that nearby "mystery ship" in favor of heading directly towards the ice barrier around Mount Temple's future location, the better (presumably) to instill massive confusion and cause later profound embarassment to poor Captain Moore. ;^)
Dave: Well put, in all respects -- this Chart has *enormous* problems, not the least of which is the implied *reversal* of the Gulf Stream, the only thing that could explain the positioning of Titanic's wreck WSW of the collision, with the lifeboats further west *still*.
Indeed, that "map" resembles a shopping mall parking lot this time of year! Thus we're presented, however inadvertently, with direct proof of the fundamental absurdities inherent in all of these multi-mystery-ship constructs. With all those ships supposedly wandering about in close proximity to both massive amounts of ice and each other, it's a wonder they didn't ALL sink without a trace! ;^)
"Sketch is rude chart and not to scale." [Thus captioned Molony.]
I think "rude" is exactly the right word. Forget any semblance of scale! This chart is insulting to the intelligence. By my reckoning, the mean interval between those various mystery and not-so-mystery vessels on the east side of the ice field is a whopping 4 miles. Yet for all that supposed nautical clutter, neither the Californian nor the Titanic ever witnesses more than ONE ship at any time. (Say what??)
Gotta admit, though -- I love the fanciful, near sideswipe shown of the Carpathia, with *her* mystery ship, as she wiggles furiously along. I can just imagine Rostron now -- screaming "Qui Vive, QUI VIVE!!!" at the top of his lungs. ;^)
In summary, it almost seems that "mystery ships" there are akin to "guardian angels" -- everybody appears to have at LEAST one. (Cripes, Californian even gets TWO!) |
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 514
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 10:04 pm: |
|
Hi, Nefarious!
>2. immediately south of the CA, a mystery >ship, "stops 11.30/11.40, moves 1.15am, departs >circa 2.15 am". She spins around in a circle, >clockwise, first heading due west, then through >north, east, south, and finally departing to the >SW, in the direction of the Titanic lifeboats.
If she didn't traverse the icefield in the dead of night, she would have had to steam southward right past the Titanic's lifeboats. (Needless to say, there is no evidence that *either* of these events took place.)
>3. directly south of the CA's mystery ship is >a "yellow funnel unknown vessel, 4 am"
It is the miraculous, unseen arrival of this vessel at 4 a.m. that makes me discount many of the supposedly specific observations that Stone and Gibson made during the night re: Californian's heading, the supposed bearing of the mystery ship, the 'departure' of the mystery ship to the SW etc. etc. Stone and Gibson were clearly not as observant that night as some people believe.
>4. the Titanic, impact with the berg near the >right hand margin, far to the east of the ice >barrier, striking her berg and sinking.
The book claims that the Titanic was roughly nine miles east of the main icefield. It also claims that the Titanic's iceberg was a lone, isolated berg (which is important when we consider your next point.)
>5. Slightly to the northwest of the Titanic, >between the Titanic herself and the >Californian's mystery ship, we have >another "mystery steamer, first seen at 12.30 >am, stern light c. 1.40 am." She spins in a wide >circle also clockwise, first approaching the >Titanic and then cruising around in a half arc. >Her tracks disappear after turning around in the >direction from which she came, .....
In other words, the Titanic's mystery ship supposedly steamed SE toward the Titanic, stopped (for no apparent reason) in clear water, made a wide turn to the south and west and retreated to the NW -- i.e. in the very same direction from which she had just come.
The question begs to be asked: if the Titanic and this mystery ship were really nine miles from the icefield, why did the Titanic's mystery ship perform all of these gyrations in clear water and then retreat toward the very icefield that she had apparently steamed away from?
All my best,
George
|
David Billnitzer
Member
Username: dbillnitzer
Post Number: 70
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 12:54 am: |
|
Hi Daniel:
>> One other thing, if some of Titanic's boats were pulling for the light of the ship that they saw, how come they never got any closer? Wouldn't that indicate that the ship was moving and steamed away from Titanic ... <<
George already hinted at this one, but below are some statements from a few of the boats that actually did try. Only a handful made the attempt, and their descriptions tell why their efforts failed:
Boat 8
“These men got into the boat under the pretense of being oarsman…. ‘I have never held an oar in my hand, but I think I can row’ …. Imagine asking men who are supposed to be at the head of lifeboats, imagine asking them if they know how to row!” (Mrs. White's testimony in the US)
Boat 3
Daisy Spedden’s diary told of rowing toward the light
Seaman Moore told of rowing into the wind, which had come up from the north
“Our men… hardly knew how to pull together. Two oars were soon overboard. The men’s hands were too cold to hold on. We stopped while they beat their hands and arms, then started on again….” (Elizabeth Shutes)
Boat C
QM Rowe described how the light was “the only stationary light,” that they did not seem to get closer to it, and that she “sort of hauled off” at daylight. Eventually headed toward the green lights (Boat 2) and then the Carpathia.
Boat 11
“We rowed around and tried to get to the other boats, to get close to them. We pulled toward a light, but we did not seem to get any closer to it, until daybreak…” (Wheelton) – it’s unclear whether their focus was to try to reach the light, or to try to find the other boats, or both at different times.
Boat 13
made a short attempt to row in the direction of the light but quickly gave up
Rowing was “lamentable” (Eva Hart)
“If our safety had depended on speed or accuracy in keeping time, it would have gone hard with us” (Lawrence Beesley)
Boat 16
“And we fancied we saw a light, sir, and we started to pull toward the light for a time, and then, after we had been pulling for it half an hour, we saw the Carpathia's side lights.” (Archer) – apparently did not spend much time trying to reach the light. Transferred a passenger to Boat 6.
Lowe's "flotilla" (4,10,12 14, D) remained pretty much near the wreck site all night long. Boats A and B were obviously out of the question. Boats 5 & 7 & 2 also remained close to the wreck site. Boat 1, the duff Gordon boat, just drifted about aimlessly. etc. etc.
The boats' failure to get nearer to the light says more about the ability of the individual boat's crew and the conditions they found themselves in, than it does about whether the light was there or not.
Dave Billnitzer
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 240
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
Just one little niggle: wasn't Eva Hart in boat 14?
Cheers
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 262
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 9:50 am: |
|
I've just got this booklet but haven't had a chance to read it all yet. I did have a read of the mystery ship section at the back.... did Senan do any search through Lloyd's List to verify they ships movements? if not, how did he do his research?
best wishes
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 299
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 10:13 am: |
|
Whoops, seems I have irked Senan a bit (particularly with regarding to the Californian swinging during the night, and the lights that the Titanic occupants saw)!
Cheers
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 483
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Hi George (Behe)!
Just re-read the above posts. I was wondering if you could point out where Gibson says that his "mystery ship" pointed North?
Best wishes
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 907
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Hi, Paul!
BR7772.
All my best,
George |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 487
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 9:52 am: |
|
Hi George,
I wonder if this occurred to Gibson at the time...? From my embryonic analysis of the lighting patterns as seen from the Californian, (and from the info on your website - thanks!), the ship seen would appear to be a smallish steamer as seen broadside on - mainly because the angle that the Titanic was from the Californian means that most of her deck lights would appear to be confined in a very small space.
I think.
Thanks again!
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 910
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 10:50 am: |
|
Hi, Paul!
I agree. Californian's foreshortened view of the Titanic's deck lights undoubtedly gave Gibson the impression that he was viewing a 'short' deck instead of viewing a 'long' deck from almost directly ahead.
All my best,
George |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 491
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 10:54 am: |
|
Hi George,
One day I will get some form of computer animation working on this subject, I promise!!
Cheers
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 523
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Hi again George,
I've done some investigation with an optics related newsgroup, and they suggest that, at night, with normal vision, a 4 minute of arc seperation of light is "about right". For a ship ten miles away, this is about 70 feet. So, from the Californian's point of view, all the deck lights would have merged into one glow - apart from this, the only distinguishable light would be the red sidelight and the mastlight.
Coupled with the apparent size of the ship (because she was not broadside on), no wonder Gibson and Stone thought that they were seeing a relatively small ship!
Best wishes
Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com |
George Behe
Member
Username: georgeb
Post Number: 916
Registered: 8-2000
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 12:30 am: |
|
Hi, Paul!
Thanks for the extra info! It's good to have this kind of information quantified to a specific figure.
All my best,
George
|
|
