| Author |
Message |
    
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 900
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 11:10 pm: | 
|
The US evidence of High Woolner is highly unreliable.
He claims that he and Hakan Bjornstrom Steffanson saw Boat D "about to lower", then went across to the starboard side, and saw an officer fire two shots to get men out of a collapsible there.
Woolner says he and Steffanson then personally pulled several men out each, and put a number women into this collapsible instead.
("We pulled out several, each" - "I should think five or six"), out of the collapsible, then "lifted in these Italian women, hoisted them up on each side and put them into the boat."
Then, having nothing further to do, Woolner claims he and Steffanson went down to A Deck, pottered about for a bit, then crossed over to the port side, where - guess what - boat D was still lowering, so they jumped into it.
Steffanson does not support any of this, and it seems demonstrably impossible for Woolner's account to have taken place in the time available.
But here is a prior account, quoting Woolner, from the Calgary Herald of April 21, 1912.
The paper claimed it as an exclusive and says it was obtained by their correspondent in New York when the Carpathia docked. No other newspaper, to my knowledge, quoted Woolner this early -
Here Woolner is saying that "at one time" (not "at the end" or "just before I left") there were shots fired at a boat (not "the last boat," "one of the last boats", or a "starboard collapsible.")
He does say it is a forward boat, but it is open as to whether it is located to starboard or port.
[Last extract was bottom of column, now to top of new column -]
Now look at this. The shots belonged to a boat at one point in proceedings, and he moves onto "the last boat" - the boat HE got into.
He and H. B. Steffanson were saved in collapsible boat D.
Woolner and Steffanson aided in getting women into this boat (no mention of a starboard collapsible).
No mention of going around to the starboard side.
No mention of pulling men out of, and loading women into, a starboard collapsible.
[His previous mention of shots is at a "boat", rather than a "collapsible."]
No mention of going down to A deck.
(Why go down there, when the ship is sinking and there are no boats on A deck?
Woolner in his US evidence: "I said to Steffanson: 'There is nothing more for us to do. Let us go down onto A deck again.'"
But why? Why do that, Hugh? Why go down to A deck?
Steffanson does not support this claimed action!)
The Calgary Herald says both men jumped as boat D left the (port) side of the ship. The only side it could leave from.
Woolner striking the gunnel with his chest is as he describes in his US evidence - eight days later.
It is not something a newspaper could have invented, and indeed it is quoting Woolner himself.
But Woolner a week later tells an end-time story of personal heroism to the US Senate subcommittee that is completely different in sequencing and other matters from his first account on landfall.
His later story also happens to be extremely physically unlikely in certain respects.
His official "evidence" is therefore far too good to be true. |
Ryan McKeefery
Member
Username: ryan_mckeefery
Post Number: 484
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 11:44 pm: |
|
Makes Dr. Pellegrino seem almost feasible, doesn't it?
<b><i>If you live for tomorrow, you'll always be one day behind.</i></b> Bill Hicks
|
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 902
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 3, 2006 - 5:15 pm: |
|
See, for Woolner to have achieved what he claims (pulling several struggling, fighting, unwilling men from a lifeboat.. etc) would have taken a considerable time.
Only a minimum 15-20 minute delay in the lowering of Boat D, from which he walked away while it was "about to lower," could explain it.
But Boat D got quickly into the water.
Quartermaster Arthur Bright was in charge -
Bright: I did not have any difficulty in getting away.
Senator Smith: No difficulty at all?
Mr Bright: No, sir.
(US p. 839)
Nobody mentions a delay. Quite the contrary -
AB William Lucas (saved in D) -
1518. What did you do then?
— I went over to the starboard side to see if there was any more boats there. There were no more boats there so I came back and the boat (D) was riding off the deck then. The water was up under the bridge then. The ladies sung out there was no sailor in the boat and no plugs, so I was a sailor and I jumped into the boat.
1534. Did you get the falls up again? — Yes, but the water was about 1½ feet (away) then when she (D) was strung up to the davits.
1537. Did you lower her and get her to the water by these falls? — No, they only required lowering. They were already in the water.
1546. ? — The water was there.
1547. Did you row away? — Yes.
1548. You practically floated off the ship? — Yes.
It is possible to submit a great deal to disprove these claims of Woolner.
Lucas's evidence (and that of others) does not allow Hugh Woolner to go down to A Deck.
Because A Deck is flooded.
So he can't get into D unless he jumps from the boat deck, port side.
Woolner's US Inquiry evidence is contradicted, not just by several people, but as we have seen in the first post here, by his own first landfall account.
Woolner is a man who, by the time he gives evidence, is faced with a societal attitude that any man saved had better be a hero if he is not to be branded a coward (J "Brute" Ismay, etc).
His evidence cannot stand.
Yet are whole theories based on uncorroborated (indeed self-contradicted) Woolner. Bizarre woolheadness is what it is. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 81
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 2:40 am: |
|
Senan, I suggest that you go back and re-read all of Steffanson's accounts of the disaster before making broad statements suggesting he does not corroborate Woolner. Two of his accounts in particular *do* corroborate Woolner's testimony as has been pointed out in the past, and these accounts were given prior to Woolner's testimony.
Senan wrote:
"Woolner's US Inquiry evidence is contradicted, not just by several people, but as we have seen in the first post here, by his own first landfall account."
This means nothing, because as you apparently aren't aware, or chose to ignore, Woolner wrote a private letter on board the Carpathia, *before* both his "first landfall account" you are pointing out, and before his inquiry testimony, and it agrees completely with his inquiry testimony. If it furthers your agenda to believe that a 1912 press account is more accurate than a private letter and inquiry testimony from the same individual, feel free to continue believing that.
As for your relying rather heavily on a press account in your above post, wasn't it you who had previously referred to press accounts as "tittle-tattle" when they didn't support your case? Seems that you have since changed your tune.
Senan wrote:
"It is possible to submit a great deal to disprove these claims of Woolner."
If you chose to alter facts or omit them, then yes, that is the case. The above topic has already been covered at length in the past, so I won't bore the readers with a rehash, but will refer them to both sections of the following thread instead, so that they can see the evidence for themselves, and how you've chosen to handle it in the past. Readers will see that, and also some of the evidence that supports Woolner:
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5665/77838.html?1139462267
Senan wrote:
"Yet are whole theories based on uncorroborated (indeed self-contradicted) Woolner. Bizarre woolheadness is what it is."
I've yet to see any theories based on Woolner alone, but it is safe to say that the only "bizarre woolheadedness" I see any evidence of is your above posts and posts in other threads on this topic. Readers can read those threads and see for themselves. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 84
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 6:12 am: |
|
Senan, what you wrote above clearly shows that you are being subjective and once again trying to mislead the readers by inaccurately quoting or spinning the evidence. For example, you wrote:
"Here Woolner is saying that "at one time" (not "at the end" or "just before I left") there were shots fired at a boat (not "the last boat," "one of the last boats", or a "starboard collapsible.")"
Wrong, Woolner himself does not say this, it is paraphrase by a reporter and not an actual quote from him as you would have us believe. (thanks very much for posting the article by the way, it is helpful in pointing out what is actually contained in it)
The reporter is clearly the one saying that "they kept at the task until the last boat had been filled and dispatched" as people can read above. The reporter is also the one who says "at one time" when describing the warning shots.
So not only are you being inaccurate, you would also have the readers believe that a paraphrase, rather than an actual quote, of what Woolner said in a 1912 press interview is more accurate than a private letter written previous to it, and more accurate than his inquiry testimony. Try getting that one to stand up. And no, I don't believe the article is fabricated, it is what it is: a paraphrase of what Woolner said in an interview, when recording devices were not yet available.
Senan wrote:
"He and H. B. Steffanson were saved in collapsible boat D. Woolner and Steffanson aided in getting women into this boat (no mention of a starboard collapsible)."
Not according to Woolner's private letter and testimony, and according to Steffanson himself. That is you saying that they put women into Collapsible D. They clearly state the starboard side. This detail being omitted in a brief paraphrase of his words does not mean it did not happen and does not indicate a contradiction is present. Sorry, but Woolner doesn't say in the press account that he "helped women into a port boat" or anything else that would contradict his other accounts, and non-statements can hardly be construed as evidence in light of his other accounts which mention that Steffanson and him pulled men out and helped women into the starboard collapsible boat.
"See, for Woolner to have achieved what he claims (pulling several struggling, fighting, unwilling men from a lifeboat.. etc) would have taken a considerable time."
Total assumption on your part, completely unsupported by the evidence. How long would hauling a few men out then helping several women into the lifeboat take, especially when they were not the only ones assisting? Jack Thayer, in 1915, the 1930s and in his published account of the sinking, states that the shooting took place at the second to last forward boat (Collapsible C), and that the men in the boat were quickly hauled out.
Another bit that shows your subjectivity is your suggestion that the above article indicates that Woolner and Steffanson leapt from the boat deck into Collapsible D, rather than from A deck. Funny how this is not only completely at odds with the accounts of these two (which you have ignored), but also that it is not borne out in the very article you refer to!
The article states the following:
"As it (Collapsible D) left the side of the ship they decided they might as well try to save themselves, having done all they could for the others, and both men jumped from the deck for the boat."
Again, this is not a quote from Woolner, but a paraphrase by a reporter when no recording devices were available to record his words. Which deck is being referred to? It doesn't specify boat deck, despite you wanting it to, nor does it specify A deck, it simply says deck. To suggest that this somehow undermines Woolner's earlier private account or later testimony is extremely tenuous and leaves one to wonder what your motives are.
"Lucas's evidence (and that of others) does not allow Hugh Woolner to go down to A Deck."
Not according to Woolner and Steffanson themselves, or to Quartermaster Rowe or Bright. Again, I point out the previous thread I posted the link to above:
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5665/77838.html?1139462267
Sam Halpern illustrated this point rather well, and there is a lot of evidence presented in that thread which shows A-Deck was not completely flooded at the time Woolner and Steffanson indicate they were there. I will not retread that evidence here. It is there for others to see. There is a significant amount of evidence in that thread that indicates how far Collapsible D had to be lowered to the water (most evidence indicates around 10-20 feet, not the 1 1/2 Lucas claimed), the rate of flooding, and that A-Deck was not flooded entirely until after Collapsible D was lowered, etc.
Also, how do you explain Second Officer Lightoller's description of seeing two men leaping into Collapsible D "from the deck below" as it was being lowered, if A deck was flooded at this time?
In your post, you have not even represented Lucas' statements accurately. He stated the following:
"1518. What did you do then? - I went over to the starboard side to see if there was any more boats there. There were no more boats there so I came back and the boat (Collapsible D) was riding off the deck then. The water was UP UNDER THE BRIDGE then."
Notice, not up to the bridge, or over the bridge, but "up under" the bridge. He repeats this again when asked if the water was up to the bridge. If A deck isn't "up under" the bridge, then what is it? This is not necessarily a contradiction, it depends on your interpretation of how far "up under" is, and when you compare his statement to the other evidence that is presented in the other thread, it is hard to argue that he meant it was level with the bridge at the time. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 905
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Hi Tad!
People can read the newspaper extract for themselves and see that he is talking about loading women into the boat he jumped into. Boat D. I am not altering anything - just comparing it with his US evidence.
But let’s take that evidence, believe it, and allow that Woolner is a Superhero.
Think about it. He leaves Boat D when it is “about to lower” in his words.
He crosses to the starboard side. (Boat D lowering.)
Woolner sees shots fired there and then (not “at one time” as the newspaper extract says). Boat D still lowering. (Nobody says D was delayed in getting away.)
Woolner now dives in to pull struggling, fighting, holding-onto-the-thwarts men out of this collapsible, by his evidence.
He pulls one out. Presumably there are others nearby to restrain the man and prevent him from jumping back in. Instead it is heroic Woolner jumps back in, bent on extracting more.
Boat D is still lowering.
Woolner pulls a second man out. Boat D is still lowering. He goes back in for yet more.
Boat D, (yeah, yeah).
Three men are now pulled out by Woolner and still Boat D has not yet reached the water.
Give yourself some time to think – all other considerations aside – as to how long it would take you to pull three resisting people, single-handedly, out of your car, or a bus, or a park bench…
Still Boat D is still lowering and still Woolner is pulling people out .
A fourth man is pulled out and stands meekly by with his colleagues, or else all are pinioned by lesser men than Woolner, who, inspired, still want to help.
Woolner pulls a fifth man out. Boat D occupants are filing their nails.
Does Woolner go on to pull out a sixth man? He says: "We pulled out several, each" - "I should think five or six."
Perhaps he deserves a rest after five. How long a rest? Boat D is still lowering.
But Woolner has more to do. He “lifts” and “hoists” Italian women into the boat.
Lifts in one woman, bodily, by himself. She is no doubt grateful. Boat D…
Hoists in a second woman…
How many women? He is not specific. But we would expect a Superhero to fill at least all the seats he has vacated through his earlier, strenuous efforts… not that they could have taken that long, some people say, because Boat D is still lowering.
Is any of this – the holding, holding, of D, because Woolner must eventually get into it, and Woolner’s evidence must be right - not just the slightest bit unlikely?
Any amount of Italian women finally hoisted or lifted in, and does Woolner rest again? He does not. He tells Steffanson (who must be enormously physically strong, having apparently matched Woolner in everything) that there is nothing left for them to do. “Let us go down to A Deck.”
Now the ship is flooding. Lucas said Boat D practically floated off. He was there in 1912.
Going down to A Deck makes no sense.
It is a ready-made rat-trap with those impenetrable windows closing it off. There are no lifeboats on A Deck.
If Woolner had said that to me, and I was Steffanson, I would have told him to take a running jump (which, ahem, is more or less what it turned out he did.)
Tad, I would be grateful if you would post here any corroboration from Steffanson saying that he went down to A Deck with Woolner after performing these heroics? I have not been able to find any.
Tad, I love your line insisting that A Deck was “not completely flooded.”
Who in their right mind is going to go down to an enclosed deck that is even partially flooded?
Even descending that staircase on the starboard side is going to be perilous, if not absurd. Woolner has patiently ferried the panicking to and from a collapsible on the boat deck, and then he and Steffanson, of their own free will, [apparently with no object in mind] go “behind the waterfall”…
Tell me, Tad, why on earth do they go down to A Deck in Woolner’s scenario?
We’ve seen Lucas talk of Boat D riding off. Not much lowering involved.
Yet, after all this time, Woolner and Steffanson are happy to stroll around a “not completely flooded” enclosed deck, until they fortunately happen to glimpse Boat D. Which is still lowering!
Don’t forget: the Titanic had a pronounced list to port at this time. A Deck is sloping. Woolner and Steffanson would have to walk downhill.
Woolner says, by his evidence, "This is getting rather a tight corner. I do not like being inside these closed windows.” (Why did he go down there, then? Why did Steffanson allegedly follow?)
Lucas’s evidence contradicts Woolner. Woolner would have the waters rear backwards, Moses-like, to enable he and Steffanson to go forward on the post side (where the water has rushed/is rushing/will rush) and then jump into the boat.
Woolner says: “Then we hopped up onto the gunwale preparing to jump out into the sea, because if we had waited a minute longer we should have been boxed in against the ceiling.”
(But why did you go down there then? If indeed you did…)
And despite all this lowering, lowering, there is the boat for the boys.
Woolner however is contradicted by the man charged with lowering Boat D.
Second Officer Lightoller, who was there, Tad, supports not you and not Woolner, but Lucas –
Lightoller:
14018. You did order this collapsible boat on the port side (D) to be lowered down from the davits? —Yes.
14019. Did you notice how far she had to drop to get to the water? — Yes.
14020. Now how far had she to drop? — Ten feet. [When “about to lower” by Woolner]
14021. Is that ten feet from the rail of the boat deck? — Ten feet from where that emergency boat is hanging now (pointing on the model).
14022. And there she met the water ?—Yes.
14023. (The Commissioner.) The fore part of the ship must have been under water? — ‘A’ deck was under water.
14024. And the bridge must have been under water? — Almost immediately afterwards the water came from the stairway… it was almost immediately after that the water came up that stairway on to the boat deck.
Lightoller says A Deck was under water.
Woolner’s evidence is literally incredible. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 85
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Wow, talk about grasping for straws.
"Now the ship is flooding. Lucas said Boat D practically floated off. He was there in 1912.
Going down to A Deck makes no sense."
Lucas said the boat was lowered 1 1/2 feet, several others say 10-20. You choose to believe one over several others, fine by me, go right ahead.
"Tad, I would be grateful if you would post here any corroboration from Steffanson saying that he went down to A Deck with Woolner after performing these heroics? I have not been able to find any."
Please forgive me if I choose not to conduct your research for you. If you really are interested in facts and not speculation, do some digging, you'll find the information I speak of.
"Tad, I love your line insisting that A Deck was “not completely flooded.”
Not my line, that's what the evidence indicates. If A deck was flooded as *you* are insisting, then how did the two men Lightoller
saw jump down into Collapsible D from the deck below as it was being lowered accomplish that feet? Again in line with Woolner and Steffanson's accounts. Choose to ignore it if you want.
"Who in their right mind is going to go down to an enclosed deck that is even partially flooded"
Nice try, I never said A deck was partially flooded already when they got there. As per Woolner, it started flooding while they were already there. Keep being selective with the evidence and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, it is getting you real far. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Per what Tad said, there was NO flooding on A deck when Woolner and Steffanson went there after leaving C. It started afterwards, shortly before they jumped for D.
"Then that boat was finally filled up and swung out, and then I said to Steffanson: "There is nothing more for us to do. Let us go down onto A deck again." And we went down again, but there was nobody there that time at all. It was perfectly empty the whole length. It was absolutely deserted, and the electric lights along the ceiling of A deck were beginning to turn red, just a glow, a red sort of glow. So I said to Steffanson: "This is getting rather a tight corner. I do not like being inside these closed windows. Let us go out through the door at the end." And as we went out through the door the sea came in onto the deck at our feet."
"About to lower" is not a definite statement. Saying a lifeboat is about to lower, means very little. It could mean it was in the davits - no more, no less. Or it could mean they were seconds away from starting to lower, as Senan is trying to get everyone to believe it means. Could be 30 seconds - or could be 10 or 15 minutes.
Grasping for straws, indeed!
Bill
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 86
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 10:22 pm: |
|
"Give yourself some time to think – all other considerations aside – as to how long it would take you to pull three resisting people, single-handedly, out of your car, or a bus, or a park bench…"
Nice illustration, except that you are again neglecting the evidence that Woolner, Steffanson, the officer and any crew on the scene, etc. would have helped to defuse the situation at Collapsible C. You are the only one, witnesses included, who would have us believe that Woolner claimed to be doing this completely alone, apparently to further your claim that his account is impossible. Also, how long would *you* fly in the face of an officer who was firing a loaded weapon and telling you to get out? You conveniently have left that fact out.
And since when does saying a boat is about to lower mean that it *is* lowering? Nice loose interpretation of the facts.
By the way, keep on relying on that paraphrase of Woolner's words in the press account alone to contradict his previous private letter and inquiry testimony, it is entertaining watching you try to buid a case out of that, while ignoring all the points to the contrary. My apologies for letting the facts and other accounts get in the way of your fun. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 11:34 pm: |
|
When Bright was leaving the forecastle head was just going under. Because of the list to port, D had about 10 ft to reach the sea.
Lightoller: “I lowered the last boat 10 feet and it was in the water.” QM Bright: “When I left, the forecastle was going under water.”
One can only speculate as to why Woolner and Steffanson would go down to A deck as the boat was sinking. I believe it was nothing more than a temporarily attempt to find a warmer place than the cold boat deck while trying to decide what is the next best thing to do. It was soon apparent that being in an area where they could not easily get off the ship may not be a good idea, but going forward through the port side door put them in an area where they could easily jump off into the sea without a large drop.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Randy Bryan Bigham
Member
Username: randy_bryan_bigham
Post Number: 240
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 4:03 am: |
|
Candee’s stylized piece, "Sealed Orders," written for Collier’s Weekly and published 4 May 1912, may not technically offer support for her friend Woolner’s claims, since she opted to be rather romantic and leave out names, but in the passage below, excerpted from her story, it’s obvious she’s describing his actions. True, Candee wasn’t there to witness whatever Woolner and Steffanson were up to in those last minutes, but it’s safe to assume she took her information directly from one or either of them.
Here’s the passage from "Sealed Orders" referencing Woolner’s escape with Steffanson. One will note the essential difference in her account is that Boat D is afloat when the men jump aboard:
"….Men of courage and resource who had been loading and lowering boats from the very first came at last to a stop. The last boat was ready for the launching. Two who had held together in the work went a deck below to see if any stray women were there unrescued. All was brilliant desolation. The lights were beginning to burn low. Water –– soft, noiseless water –– was creeping up the slanting deck so fast that in another minute they would have been imprisoned under the deck's roof. They leaped to the railing and mounted it. At that moment the last boat floated before them, three yards away, with vacant room in the bow. Surely they had the right! They looked in each other's faces to ask the question, and each nodded to the other, "yes." They leaped the space and caught the side of the boat, the last to leave the ship by boat, and almost the only rescuers who were saved….."
For the full article, available here on ET, follow this link:
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/candee_02.php
http://www.costumesocietyamerica.com/
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 87
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 4:36 am: |
|
Hello Randy, how have you been? Things have been hectic here, but I can't complain. Thank you very much for pointing this out. It has been a really long time since I have seen that article, and I would be lying if I said that I remembered this being in there offhand. Good eye! :0) I rather enjoyed your article on this by the way.
You're right, although this isn't an eyewitness account, it is very interesting when one considers that Candee knew both Hugh Woolner and Steffanson well, spent a decent amount of time with both during the voyage, and was very close at one point with the former.
It is certainly reasonable to assume that she discussed this with one or both of them onboard the Carpathia or at some later date, especially since it matches what both said individually, which is in turn corroborated by Lightoller's sighting of two men jumping into Collapsible D as it was lowered past A-deck.
Her account provides a possible motive for why they headed down to A-deck in the first place, an act which has been falsely characterized as some sort of paranormal or impossible to explain event by an individual in this thread.
The detail she relays about the lifeboat being afloat rather than barely above the water when they jumped in is slightly different, as you've said. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if this insignificant difference and detail is latched onto and presented as a three-page long post paraded as evidence that Woolner was a liar.
I hope that you have a great day tomorrow and that things are well with you. Finally feeling like Spring here, which is ok by me.
Kind regards,
Tad |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 2:11 am: |
|
"Her account provides a possible motive for why they headed down to A-deck in the first place."
This certainly fits with the romantic explanation of why those "men of courage" did what they did. And that touch about being imprisoned in another minute by the creeping water makes for a great dramatic moment. But I tend to believe a far simpler, more selfish explanation.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 90
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 2:25 am: |
|
Hi Sam, how are you today? Good I hope. For what it's worth, that's what I believe to have been the case too. I believe that they were simply trying to find a way to stay warm or save themselves.
I pointed Candee's statement out as a counter to Senan's claim that there was "no reason" at all for them to be on A-deck. We already have two possible motives.
Something that I did not point out, but which is again in line with a statement Woolner made in a private letter aboard the Carpathia: Candee mentions that in another minute, the water would have pinned them to the "deck's roof". Woolner himself described the same thing in detail, showing how rapidly the ship was settling at this point. Water began pouring onto A-deck right before they left. By the time Steffanson and him leapt into Collapsible D as it lowered, the water was so close that Woolner's legs dangled into the water, and the water nearly reached the top of A-deck right as D was pulling away. This matches the rate of flooding as described by Rowe and Bright in their testimony. |
Randy Bryan Bigham
Member
Username: randy_bryan_bigham
Post Number: 241
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 3:02 am: |
|
Hi, Tad:
Good to see you here again! I enjoy your posts as always. Thanks for recognizing merit in Helen Candee’s story, which is a good one, if not totally accurate. I also agree Woolner and Steffanson were trying to save their necks when they went down to A Deck, not scouting out more women to save; Candee just gave it a flourish. But I think her mentioning A Deck flooding as the men escaped isn’t dramatic license. It must be based on at least Woolner’s own account.
Best wishes,
Randy
PS) If Woolner was treading water as he jumped for Boat D (I’d forgotten that bit), then Candee wasn’t far off in her description of its being afloat. Perhaps, when she heard his tale, she interpreted that to mean the boat was in the water, at least partially, at the time.
http://www.costumesocietyamerica.com/
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 91
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 5:13 am: |
|
Hello again Randy, how are you? I'm good, about to turn in for the night. I agree, Helen Candee was a good and entertaining writer.
You wrote:
"If Woolner was treading water as he jumped for Boat D (I’d forgotten that bit), then Candee wasn’t far off in her description of its being afloat. Perhaps, when she heard his tale, she interpreted that to mean the boat was in the water, at least partially, at the time."
Sounds completely possible to me. According to Woolner and him, in essence, as A-Deck began to flood, Bjorstrom Steffanson leapt out from A-deck and landed squarely in the bow of Collapsible D as it was lowered past, and Hugh Woolner, missing the mark somewhat, hit his lifebelt on the gunwale of the collapsible, and slipped, his feet ending up in the water as the boat was nearly touched down to the surface. Lightoller witnessed this from the deck above. Woolner indicates that immediately after Collapsible D begins to row away, the water had nearly risen to the "ceiling" of A-Deck on the port side, aka the bottom of the boat deck. Because of the list, the starboard side of A-deck was probably still high and dry at the moment.
Good hearing from you as well Randy, I enjoy your posts too, thanks for the compliment. I hope that you have a great day tomorrow.
Kind regards,
Tad |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 906
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 11:46 am: |
|
So Lightoller and Lucas say A Deck was under water. Lightoller says that specifically. There is no gainsaying it.
If the boat only has to lower 10 feet, quite obviously Deck is substantially under water and nobody could go down there.
I note that no-one has yet posted any Steffanson support for Woolner going down to A Deck.
Candee's romanticised account comes after Woolner's evidence.
Here is more of what Lightoller says -
14035. Had you time to do anything more after you got that collapsible boat (D) afloat? — I called
for men to go up on the deck of the quarters for the collapsible boat (B) up there...
14036. There was no time to open her up at all? —No, the water was then on the boat deck.
Lightoller is consistent with this US evidence –
Lightoller: I lowered the last boat (collapsible D) 10 feet and it was in the water.
Senator Smith: You lowered it 10 feet and it was in the water?
Lightoller: Yes, sir.
No head room for Woolner.
Look at the rest of the crew of D:
John Hardy (US evidence)
"We were too near the water when we lowered away."
The transcript immediately thereafter has him saying "We were not more than 40 feet from the water when we lowered." But 40ft cannot be "too near" as the boat deck was 70ft from the sea, and 40ft is 40ft.
This leaves open the possibility that this is an acoustic mistake. Hardy might have said 14ft. Before you jump all over this, remember that it is "too near" that he is saying, which rules out 40ft.
Furthermore, the US Inquiry is full of acoustic errors. It has, for instance, Daniel Buckley saying he comes from "Town Court" instead of "County Cork."
Samuel leaves out the rest of Bright's quote -
Bright: What we call the forecastle head was just going under water. That would be about 20 feet lower than the bridge, I should say.
Senator Smith: In other words, the boat had sunk about 50 feet into the water?
Bright: Yes, sir; all of that,
We know the boat deck is 70ft from the surface, less in a list situation, because it's not vertical. Take Bright's 50ft away from 70ft and it leaves 20ft.
Lightoller, Lucas, Hardy and Bright effectively say the water was "too near" for anyone to go down to A Deck.
No-one has offered a credible motive for Woolner (let alone Steffanson, who appears to be silent on the subject) to go down there.
It is no good to suggest either, that there must have been a delay in the lowering of D (to enable Woolner to perform all unloading and loading heroics and still get into it).
Becaues Woolner's claim is that he saw a starboard collapsible.
Lightoller sees it at the same time. He climbs onto the roof of the officer's quarters and is seeing a starboard collapsible.
And Lightoller says "the water was then on the boat deck." How could Woolner leave the collapsible and go down to A?
Are you going to tell me he had loads of time? The others deny it.
Woolner has no support. Others who were there testify against Woolner's evidence. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 92
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Senan, Senan, Senan, you are really trying hard here aren't you?
"So Lightoller and Lucas say A Deck was under water. Lightoller says that specifically. There is no gainsaying it."
Wrong again Senan. Despite your claim, Lightoller says nothing that discounts Woolner. As for your claim that Lightoller says this "specifically," nothing above says anything about this "specifically." Why don't you quit trying to mislead the readers?
Contrary to your claim, Lightoller mentioned that he saw two men jump into Collapsible D from the deck below, quite impossible if A-deck was flooded at the time as *you* would have us believe.
You so kindly posted Lightoller's evidence:
"14035. Had you time to do anything more after you got that collapsible boat (D) afloat? — I called for men to go up on the deck of the quarters for the collapsible boat (B) up there...
14036. There was no time to open her up at all? —No, the water was then on the boat deck."
Senan, this is again consistent with Woolner and Steffanson's version of events. Woolner in particular was quite specific that right after they jumped, and by the time Collapsible D began rowing away, the water had risen up nearly to the boat deck. This supports rather than undermines Woolner: Lightoller says the same thing, the water was about ten feet below, then in the very short period of time between when Collapsible D was lowered and the beginning of the attempt to free Collapsible B, it was level with the port side of the boat deck.
Senan wrote:
"If the boat only has to lower 10 feet, quite obviously Deck is substantially under water and nobody could go down there."
Incorrect again. Woolner and Steffanson were on A-deck before the flooding began, and at the moment Collapsible D began lowering, otherwise they would not have been able to catch it as it lowered past them. Water had just begun to reach the port side of A-deck as they were standing nearby.
You should do some measuring. The outside water level could be more than three feet *above* the level of the floor of A-deck and *still* be held
back from the deck itself by the solid railing forward and by the lower part of the wall containing the glass windows. The water had to rise *above* the solid railing before flooding could occur. So yes, A-Deck could have been high and dry at the time, and was as the evidence indicates.
Senan wrote:
"I note that no-one has yet posted any Steffanson support for Woolner going down to A Deck."
As I said previously, I am not about to conduct your research for you. Try digging yourself if you want to find it. It's there. It's called research before making criticisms and accusations. If you don't want to look for it, feel free to continue with your unhealthy attacks of any work conducted by certain researchers who you have a personal problem with, and don't let the facts get in the way of your claims. It will just be showing your true colors again.
Senan wrote:
"No-one has offered a credible motive for Woolner (let alone Steffanson, who appears to be silent on the subject) to go down there."
We already offered two possible motives, you saying they are not credible does not make that so.
Senan wrote:
"Woolner has no support. Others who were there testify against Woolner's evidence."
Rather than go through this exercise again, I will simply refer readers to both segments of the following thread once again to address the above statement:
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5665/77838.html?1139462267
What I find particularly interesting Senan, is how you have condemned other researchers in the past for using newspaper articles in their research, calling them "tittle-tattle", yet here you are relying solely on a paraphrase of Woolner's words by a reporter from a newspaper article to support your thinly veiled attack, and are taking them to be more reliable than a first-hand and highly detailed private letter written several days before the newspaper article appeared, and over testimony given in the inquiry, both of which agree almost completely. You are even taking the article, or at least your selective interpretation of it, over Lightoller. It just doesn't make any sense. In fact, I think even you are having a hard time believing your argument. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Senan wrote:
quote:Lightoller: I lowered the last boat (collapsible D) 10 feet and it was in the water.
Senator Smith: You lowered it 10 feet and it was in the water?
Lightoller: Yes, sir.
No head room for Woolner.
Actually there was plenty of head room because A deck was 9 feet 6 inches below the boat deck. Now I assume Mr. Lightoller was just estimating the depth that D had to be lowered. But if he was anywhere near being close to what it really was, then A deck on the port side would be just above the level of the water when they started to lower D. There was 9' 6'' of headroom and a dry A deck at that time.
A few more facts. The boat deck was 58' 0'' above a 34' 7'' waterline amidships, not 70 feet. (See BOT report for deck height details.) Even allowing for mean draft of 2 feet higher after 2/3 of the voyage, we are talking about 60 feet under 0 trim from waterline to the boat deck amidships. With the forecastle head seen to be going under when they launched boat D, the water at the aft end of the forward well deck would be close to the level of B deck forward on the ship's centerline, which was 18' 6'' below the boat deck. Bright was close in his estimate of 20 ft. A list to port of about 10 degrees (producing a 2.5 feet gap between the side rail of the Boat deck and the side of a lifeboat per seaman Frank Evans' observation) would bring the boat deck further down by 8 feet on the port side, and raised by 8 feet on the starboard side. This means on the port side it would be 18' 6'' - 8' = 10' 6'' above the water which supports Lightoller's observation. This then puts A deck forward at about 1 foot above the water on the port side at that time they started to lower away. Within a very few minutes the sea would be up to A deck, and as Woolner said, "And as we went out through the door the sea came in onto the deck at our feet."
It is all very consistent if you willing to analyse the details.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 907
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:04 am: |
|
So we appear to accept that Boat D had only to lower ten feet when Woolner left it “about to lower.†How long is it going to take to lower in these circumstances? A minute? Two?
Lucas’s mention of the boat 'riding off' suggests the sinking – if not the lowering (both combining of course) – was rapid.
All of Woolner’s story and sequencing thus simply does not hang together. How can he go around to the starboard side, be stopped by pistol shots, then drag out 'five or six' persons personally, next 'hoist' up several replacement Italian women into the boat he sees there?
How can he do all this, dust his hands down, say to Steffanson (paraphrasing): 'Let us go down to the death-trap of A Deck, for a lark.'
(Why doesn’t Steffanson reply: 'Ach, I’ve been there. Why don’t we go down to the engine room instead? I fancy seeing all that machinery.')
Let’s go back to Lightoller –
He says:
14025. When. you were filling that collapsible boat (D) and preparing it to
go, had you noticed that the water was over the bows of the ship ?—I could not say the bows of the ship but I could see it coming up the stairway.
This is before Woolner says the boat was “about to lower.†It is being prepared, not lowered, and Lightoller at this point can see the water coming up a 10-foot stairway which only leads down to A Deck.
14026. You noticed that? — Yes.
14027. And the other people on the boat deck could see that too? — If they looked down the stairway, yes.
Woolner is presumably still here on the port side, since D is not yet “about to lower.†But the water is already on A Deck, as Lucas and others state.
Lightoller: I lowered the last boat 10 feet and it was in the water.
Senator Smith: You lowered it 10 feet and it was in the water? - Yes, sir.
Q. When you began lowering, the boat was about 60 feet up from the water?
Lightoller: Seventy feet.
70 minus 60 is 10 feet, which is the drop to A Deck. Water already on A deck when D starts to lower. Therefore Woolner has to manhandle his dozen-or-so boat occupants to starboard and still get down to A Deck – which has been filling since before he pulled his first man out.
(13846A - I can remember that distinctly—lowering it only about 10 feet.)
Lightoller only says two men got in from A Deck in his 1935 book. Let’s be clear: He does not see them. He does not mention them in 1912 evidence.
He mentions only in evidence (14030) two passengers — Those were the ones I heard about afterwards. 14031. You did not know they had got in? — No, I did not.
Lucas, who talks about boat D riding off, and it only being one and a half feet from the water, suggests these were “foreign†passengers and steerage at that.
Bright, as we have seen, remembers a gentleman who “took to the water and climbed in the boat after we had lowered it. I remember that quite distinctly.†Pity he didn’t say more about it.
Bright wasn't amazed, as he might have been if this man had extricated himself from the water on A Deck (that Woolner himself describes) in order to jump. 'A tight corner,' Woolner said.
I find it rather interesting that some people feel the need to defend every line of Woolner’s EXTRAORDINARY evidence (extraordinary, any way you cut it! Commemorative statue, anyone?)…
All those men; all those Italian women. Somehow “superhero†doesn’t quite do justice. |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 94
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Senan, as Sam said, the evidence is all very consistent if you are willing to analyze it, so why don't you try to go back to the drawing board and do just that?
Woolner and Steffanson were on A-Deck while the water began to come over the rail onto A-deck, then they saw Collapsible D lowering past after this. So, all you've done is further validate Woolner and Steffanson's accounts. Lightoller also indicates this, saying right before Collapsible D was lowered, the water had reached A-Deck (as you said in your last post, how long would it take to lower Collapsible D ten feet?), and that right after Collapsible D reached the water and the crew turned their attention to Collapsible B, water was on the boat deck, again consistent with Woolner saying the water was nearly to the "ceiling" of A-Deck right after Collapsible D began rowing away. Arguing that a question posed to Lightoller about the boat "preparing" to launch means that is was far from ready is another determination that proves you are being subjective. That is hardly proof of there being a long period of time left before it was lowered away.
Senan wrote:
"Woolner is presumably still here on the port side, since D is not yet “about to lower.†But the water is already on A Deck, as Lucas and others state."
The quote is "to be lowered", not that it was "about to lower." You are really hung up (to the point of mischaracterizing his statement) on Woolner's description that Collapsible D was "to be lowered away," in an attempt to show that Collapsible D was lowering while Steffanson and him were there, and thus their accounts are not valid.
It's really not that hard to understand. Woolner says Collapsible D was "to be lowered away," not that it *was* ordered to be lowered away at that moment, not that it *was* lowering away at that moment.
There is nothing to this contention, as with most of your argument.
The whole argument in your post above hinges on you trying to make the distinction between a boat "preparing" to lower and that a boat was "to be lowered away", in an attempt to prove the events as mentioned by Lightoller happened sooner than when Woolner was there. It doesn't work. Anything before actually lowering away Collapsible D could be considered "preparing".
I guess when you publicly commit yourself to a viewpoint though, that you'll never admit to being wrong no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. You have an amazing track record for that, such as your whole Irish Titanic Society article where you claimed that Johanna "Stunke" was not a passenger on the Bremen and that she therefore did not see any Titanic bodies in the water. In truth,
her name was actually spelled Johanna Steinke
and her name is definitely on the Bremen's passenger list, and thus the entire premise of your article was wrong, but you've never corrected the mistake. This is just one of an endless list of examples, so forgive me if I don't suggest that people double-check your facts before believing your arguments.
Senan wrote:
"He mentions only in evidence (14030) two passengers — Those were the ones I heard about afterwards. 14031. You did not know they had got in? — No, I did not."
As for Lightoller, you can brush off what he said about two men jumping from A-Deck if it is inconvenient for your argument. You seem to be good at that. For example, in the above quote, you have "accidentally" left out the part where the passengers were described as being foreign. While that might apply to Steffanson, it certainly does not apply to Woolner. Maybe you deliberately left this out because it isn't consistent with your suggestion that this is in reference to those two men? Here is the full quote:
"14030. He says two foreign passengers? - Those were the ones I heard about afterwards."
Working hard to prove a point, aren't we, when we begin altering statements to fit our arguments? |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 908
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 12:33 pm: |
|
This is a game of "Woolner's new clothes."
Woolner would like you all to be able to see them, as some people evidently do.
So let's call Hugh Woolner again in the case under review: Woolner's wonderful works.
Hugh Woolner:
Senator Smith: How long was that [your being on A deck] after the collapsible lifeboat (D) that you have just referred to was lowered?
Woolner: Oh, quite a few minutes; a very few minutes.
So Woolner says, as all other witnesses this time *agree" with him, that Boat D was lowered in only a very few minutes.
Yet he achieved all his astonishing feats in this timeframe.
It is he who supplies the timeframe himself.
"...then they got out a collapsible (D) and hitched her onto the most forward davits and they filled that up, mostly with steerage women and children, and one seaman, and a steward, and I think one other man - but I am not quite certain about that - and when that boat seemed to be quite full, and was ready to be swung over the side, and was to be lowered away, I said to Steffanson: "There is nothing more for us to do here."...
In that time, from leaving D (which he must eventually enter), Woolner has "a very few minutes" to achieve all he did before being down on A Deck.
He tells us what he did in these very few minutes. These are his wonderful works, quoting Woolner himself -
1) We went across there (to starboard) because we heard a certain kind of shouting...
2) I saw these two flashes of the pistol, and
Steffanson and I went up to help to clear that boat of the men who were climbing in...
3) We helped the officer to pull these men out, by their legs and anything we could get hold of. [clearly suggests they were resisting, as no doubt they would.] Later, again - 'I got hold of them by their feet and legs.'
4) We pulled out several, each. I should think five or six.
5) Then we lifted in these Italian women, hoisted them up on each side and put them into the boat. They were very limp. They had not much spring in them at all.
6) Then that boat was finally filled up and swung out. [Did he help swing it out too, or did he leave this to others?]
7) I said to Steffanson: "There is nothing more for us to do. Let us go down onto A deck
again."
8) And we went down again, but there was nobody there that time at all.
9) I said to Steffanson: "This is getting rather a tight corner. I do not like being inside these closed windows. Let us go out through the door at the end."
10) "And as we went out through the door the sea came in onto the deck at our feet."
Ten feet to lower D. But the above is Woolner's sequencing and he gives it "a very few minutes."
Tell you what, shall we pop it on a postcard and send it to Mythbusters?
Do you think a man would be able to pull out half a dozen average-male-weight mannikins from a boat in a very few minutes?
We're making them deadweight. They are not resisting. They are dummies.
What about "hoisting" average-weight Italian ladies in thereafter, in the same very few minutes?
Other witnesses say water is on A Deck or coming up the stairway before the "very few minutes" begins. They must be wrong, because Woolner can stop it before it arrives...
Senator Smith: You remained down there with your friend until the sea came in - water came in - on A deck?
Woolner: On that A deck. Then we hopped up onto the gunwale preparing to jump out into the sea, because if we had waited a minute longer we should have been boxed in against the ceiling.
And as we looked out we saw this collapsible, the last boat on the port side, being lowered right in front of our faces.
Ah, let's stop it there. How far out? asks Smith?
"About 9 feet out," says Woolner.
That's how far the port list was leaning out of the vertical.
Woolner says he and Steffanson climbed the gunnel from right forward (the only open place on A Deck).
But if there is a list, as he says there is, and if Lightoller's water is coming up the stairway from before Boat D lowers, then gushing water has pooled very deeply in this area.
Woolner, as in all other aspects, is swimming against the tide.... |
Michael Poirier
Member
Username: mike_poirier
Post Number: 315
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Besides the testimony, are there any accounts by survivors in Boat D like Rene Harris, May Futrelle, Jane Hoyt, etc who can corroborate Woolner's story? Shame to think that whatever did happen, Erik Lindberg-Lind didn't make the jump. He just as easily could have saved himself.
Clemency: We've been torpedoed! Oh, Mother! What shall we do?
Millicent: Get the jewelry.
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 95
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Bjornstrom Steffanson corroborates Woolner's story, although if one is using the argument that Woolner lied, they will automatically discount his word as well. Lightoller also described seeing 2 men jump from the deck below as Collapsible D was lowered past. |
Michael Poirier
Member
Username: mike_poirier
Post Number: 317
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Oh, I am aware of that. But what I am asking is who else can corroborate the story as this will be a back-and-forth argument with no resolution unless other evidence is put forth.
Clemency: We've been torpedoed! Oh, Mother! What shall we do?
Millicent: Get the jewelry.
|
Ben Holme
Member
Username: benedict
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Regarding QM Bright's observation of a man who: "took to the water and climbed in the boat after we had lowered it. I remember that quite distinctly."
This is surely a reference to Frederick Hoyt, is it not? It is noteworthy that while several witnesses attested to Hoyt's presence in the water, very few (if any) made any reference to the A-deck acrobatics of Woolner and Steffanson.
Mike - Interesting detail concerning Lindberg-Lind. Which witness placed him on the port-side near Collapsible D? I know only of Thayer's sighting of him on the opposite side.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Michael Poirier
Member
Username: mike_poirier
Post Number: 318
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Hello Ben,
Many years ago, Titanic International had Erik's stepson, Ake Dubois at the convention. I believe Claus Wetterholm brought him. Anyways, either Steffanson or Woolner wrote a letter saying that Lindberg-Lind was with them throughout, but for some reason didn't jump. The thing is, since Lindberg-Lind was using an alias, I think to the press, Woolner and Steffanson were being discreet in not mentioning him.
Mike
Clemency: We've been torpedoed! Oh, Mother! What shall we do?
Millicent: Get the jewelry.
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1571
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 12:28 am: |
|
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/1292/
In this account by Hoyt, he described descending to a deck closer to the sea, presumably from the boat deck. I assume he meant A deck. He jumped out into the sea and swam for what was thought to be a long way before reaching a lifeboat, which contained his wife. This boat was boat D.
A few things jump out. Hoyt does not mention Woolner not Steffanson. He does not say where he jumped; whether it was at the forward end, or more amidships.
He also does not mention water flooding the deck that he was on. But, to coin a phrase, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".
It does, however, look like he managed to leap into the sea before the deck flooded. I'd leave it to others to debate how long it took A deck to flood. From this discussion, it looked like Hoyt managed to jump before the deck flooded, which sounds a little unlikely given the rate of flooding. Maybe its me, but Hoyt descended to a lower deck by the stairs near the bridge. If Woolner is right, then these stairs would have been awash very soon after he jumped to boat D. And by this stage, D was not, according to Hoyt's description, so far away that swimming a distance was the only way to reach it. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 12:59 am: |
|
Paul - depending on where Hoyt jumped from, Collapsible D was either a short or long distance. Besides, given the temperature of the water, I would think ANY distance would seem long to a swimmer!
As far as whether he noted Woolner or Steffanson, unless he was right next to them when he left the ship, I doubt he would note them - or much of anything, once he hit the water. Once in the lifeboat, he was probably too busy trying not to freeze to note anyone specific.
Michael - any information you can share on this letter either Woolner or Steffanson wrote.
Thanks for the article on Woolner, Tad! Interesting.
Bill
|
Michael Poirier
Member
Username: mike_poirier
Post Number: 319
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hello Bill,
I will dig out that issue. It was many years ago, I suspect 1990 when this all came out.
Should be able to post in a day or so.
Mike
Clemency: We've been torpedoed! Oh, Mother! What shall we do?
Millicent: Get the jewelry.
|
Ben Holme
Member
Username: benedict
Post Number: 681
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Thanks, Mike.
Always interested to learn new details of passengers whose last actions and movements have largely remained nebulous.
The timing on events seems somewhat awry in that newspaper account of Hoyt's departure from the ship. In this version, collpasibe D (containing Mrs. Hoyt) is lowered to the water. Hoyt then returns to his C-deck stateroom - one of the furthest aft - before returning to the forward bridge locality to have a nerve-calming tipple with Captain Smith who then advises him to jump.
In other accounts, Hoyt merely jumps into the sea and swims to the spot where he guesses "D" might land. This meshes somewhat better with QM Bright's obsevations. That being the case, it may be inferred that he departed the ship somwewhat earlier that Woolner and Steffanson.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Michael Poirier
Member
Username: mike_poirier
Post Number: 320
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Hi Ben-
I am not sure where the author got it, but the book 'Down to Eternity' has an account with the Hoyts. I don't think there is much 1st person to it, but it seemed detailed from Fred telling Jane to gather her things, including her jewelry, etc....
Bill, I found the issue. It was from the 1992 convention. Anyways, it featured a letter that Erik wrote to his wife on the ship. He called it a 'collossus' and from there it said from accounts given by Steffanson, Lindberg-Lind was with the other two early on and helped Mrs. Lindstroem into the boat and that he stayed with them until they made the jump. I guess Steffanson, from what was written, gave a number of accounts over the years and that he did mention Lindberg-Lind and that LL had confessed why he was travelling incognito (to avoid an ex-wife in NY).
That's all I'm afraid. Great story. Too bad it never makes it into books.
Mike
PS Ben, when does Thayer mention Lind? I am drawing a blank.
Clemency: We've been torpedoed! Oh, Mother! What shall we do?
Millicent: Get the jewelry.
|
Ben Holme
Member
Username: benedict
Post Number: 682
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Hi Mike,
Thayer's reference to "Mr. Lingrey" (Lind's shipboard pseudonym) can be found in the account recorded in Col. Gracie's book.
"We thought of getting into...the last boat on the forward part of the starboard side, but there seemed to be such a crowd around that I thought it unwise to make any attempt to get into it. I thought it would never reach the water ride side up, but it did.
Here I noticed nobody that I knew except Mr. Lingrey whom I had met for the first time that evening. I lost sight of him in a few minutes.
This is where it gets interesting and impacts upon the discussion at hand.
Like Senan, I was initially sceptical about the veracity of Woolner's account. The overwhelming impression conveyed was that Woolner had resorted to embellishment to vindicate his presence in collapsibe D.
Now, we know that Lindeberg-Lind was sighted in the locality of collapsibe C at around the time it was descended upon by crowds. In other words, he was observed in the same vicinity and at the same time that Woolner would later place himself when imparting his version of events to the Inquest.
This would indicate that if Woolner (and Steffanson) were in the company of Lindeberg-Lind until the last, as they claimed to have been, it might be inferred that when Thayer had observed EL-L, Woolner and Steffanson must have been there too, whether they were flexing their "hoisting" muscles or not. :-)
Far more difficult to explain away is the decision of the pair (trio?) to relocate to A-deck, resisting the lure of the safest part of the ship for no discernable reason. However it may be construed, their "descent" remains bafflingly illogical. What posessed them, for example, to trap themselves in an enclosed portion of a forward-most extremety of a forward-tilting ship?
Woolner expressed fear of a "tight corner", and in so saying, he was correct. It was a tight corner, but not nearly so tight as the A-deck promenade directly below the bridge. At least they had the comparative safety of the whole length of the ship to escape to prior to opening the forward "door". But no, they made directly for the rising waters.
My tentative suggestion is that they did go down to A-deck, just as they stated they did, but not for the reasons they subsequently gave. Woolner would have us believe that he happened upon the descending collapsible merely by accident, but it is far more likely that the decision to head below was engendered by premeditated strategy to head directly for "D".
Survivial instinct would quickly have asserted itself in the minds all those who knew that Collapside "D" embodied their only hope of departing the ship dry. If, Woolner reasoned, he and Steffanson had attempted to board D at boat-deck level, their efforts would have been hampered by Lightoller's strict preventative measures at this juncture, and since an escape by swimming remained a perilous prospect, he reasoned that to enter the boat at a point where it was unguarded constituted the most prudent option.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 97
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 9:06 pm: |
|
Hello Mike, how are you doing? Good I hope. That is really interesting information regarding Lindberg-Lind, thanks for sharing it. Like Ben, I am always interested in learning new information about passengers and crewmembers whose last actions and locations remain largely unknown. It is unfortunate that some people slipped through the cracks when people were recalling the events. Do you suspect Woolner and Steffanson deliberately left Lind out of their public accounts because he had been traveling incognito, or do you believe it was because they didn't want to talk about a friend that had to be left behind?
Ben wrote:
"The timing on events seems somewhat awry in that newspaper account of Hoyt's departure from the ship. In this version, collpasibe D (containing Mrs. Hoyt) is lowered to the water. Hoyt then returns to his C-deck stateroom - one of the furthest aft - before returning to the forward bridge locality to have a nerve-calming tipple with Captain Smith who then advises him to jump."
Yes, I agree with you. The newspaper account has him going all the way aft to his stateroom, then back forward to speak and share some spirits with Captain Smith, then has him going down to the deck below to jump, all after Collapsible D was lowered away. If this is true, then he would not have been on the scene to witness Woolner and Steffanson jump in as Collapsible D lowered past A-deck.
However, I share your view that the timing is incorrect in the newspaper account, because if Lightoller and Woolner and the others mentioned in this thread are to be believed, very shortly after launching Collapsible D at 2:05 AM, water reached the boat deck on the port side. This would make the press version of Hoyt's movements impossible, unless he jumped from further aft, or midship on A-deck, which isn't indicated. This account doesn't mention water being on A-deck, which was supposedly completely flooded according to one individual's opinion in this thread.
Further support of Woolner's story comes in the form of several press accounts and a private letter given by Bjornstrom Steffanson, some of which can be found fairly easily:
"Woolner and myself went two decks down and saw water rushing in there. A lifeboat was lowered with several women and children from the steerage, and as it passed where I was I jumped in."
Ben wrote:
"In other accounts, Hoyt merely jumps into the sea and swims to the spot where he guesses "D" might land. This meshes somewhat better with QM Bright's obsevations. That being the case, it may be inferred that he departed the ship somwewhat earlier that Woolner and Steffanson."
I agree completely, this version of Hoyt's exit seems to be the more accurate one, based on the other existing accounts of his exit. Steward Hardy stated that Hoyt had taken to the water, and swam to Collapsible D after it was lowered. Hoyt, in a letter to Colonel Gracie, says that he spoke with Captain Smith, who he had known for over 15 years, and that he suggested Hoyt go down to A-Deck and see if there was a boat alongside. He did, and saw Collapsible D still hanging in its davits, so he jumped overboard and swam out, waiting for Collapsible D to lower away. This means that he jumped prior to Collapsible D lowering, and would not have been on A-deck at the same time as Woolner and Steffanson. Woolner himself mentions that after they had jumped into Collapsible D and it reached the water, they saw a man who they did not know swimming in the water and helped pull him in. Surely this was Hoyt.
I hope that all of you are having a nice weekend.
Kind regards,
Tad |
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 98
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Hi Ben, how are you? Very interesting post indeed! The information about Lind being seen near Collapsible C certainly would seem to support at least part of Woolner and Steffanson's story, since they had been together. I would probably have to agree with your thoughts on why they decided to descend to A-deck as well.
Perhaps with the panic and crowds, they decided that it would be less of a "tight corner" to try jumping into Collapsible D, from a location where there were no crowds, and more importantly as you pointed out, no crewmembers to stop them. It certainly seems as if they deliberately headed toward the location where Collapsible D would lower past. Sam Halpern (Sam, if I am misinterpreting your opinion, please correct me) also feels that they went down to A-deck, but not for the reason of looking for more women. Who could blame them? I would probably have tried saving myself in a similar fashion since the boat was lowering with empty seats and it was so close to the end. Even more so if water was rising nearby.
Kind regards,
Tad |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 10:04 pm: |
|
Concerning seeing water down the stairs. Let's go back to what Lightoller said:
14018. You did order this collapsible boat on the port side to be lowered down from the davits? - Yes.
14019. Did you notice how far she had to drop to get to the water? - Yes.
14020. Now how far had she to drop? - Ten feet.
14021. Is that ten feet from the rail of the boat deck? - Ten feet from where that emergency boat is hanging now (pointing on the model).
14022. And there she met the water? - Yes.
14023. (The Commissioner.) The fore part of the ship must have been under water? - A deck was under water.
14024. And the bridge must have been under water? - Almost immediately afterwards the water came from the stairway. There is a little stairway goes down here just abaft the bridge, which goes right down here and comes out on this deck for the use of the crew only and it was almost immediately after that the water came up that stairway on to the boat deck.
14025. (The Solicitor-General.) When you were filling that collapsible boat and preparing it to go, had you noticed that the water was over the bows of the ship? - I could not say the bows of the ship but I could see it coming up the stairway.
14026. You noticed that? - Yes.
14027. And the other people on the boat deck could see that too? - If they looked down the stairway, yes.
Before boat D was lowered Lightoller says "I could see it coming up the stairway." He also said the boat had only to drop 10 feet to reach the water, but we know A deck was 9' 6'' below the boat deck, so it would have been close to the level of A deck as they started to lower it. When the boat was finally in the water, "A deck was under water." Then "almost immediately afterwards" he sees the water coming up the stairway onto the boat deck.
Now Senan said: "It [boat D] is being prepared, not lowered, and Lightoller at this point can see the water coming up a 10-foot stairway which only leads down to A Deck. Now, with all due respect, I can see why you came to this conclusion. But a stairway leading down only to A deck is not exactly correct. The stairway went down to a small landing on A deck where they had a sliding door so you can go outside. But it continued in the same direction down to B deck. Attached is diagram that shows this stairway and what Lightoller was looking at. The partial deck plans for all 3 relevant decks are to the left for reference. While loading boat D, water could be seen coming up the stairs from B deck below. At the time they started to lower D, the water would be close to the A deck landing 9' 6'' below. By time D was in in the water, and they were removing the falls, the water would have been coming up the stairs from A deck toward the boat deck. Is is entirely reasonable that A deck began to flood as the boat was reaching the water at the point where Woolner said they jumped for it from the rail. Boat D was not just dropped into the water. QM Bright: "When the boat was lowered the foremost fall was lowered down and the other one seemed to hang and I called out to hang on to the foremost fall and to see what was the matter and let go the after one."
Between the launching of D and the time Lightoller left the ship, the water would have risen from the level of A deck to the top of the wheelhouse on the port side. It was in the last 10-15 minutes or so that things started to happen very fast.
Cheers,
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40? 23' 50'' N, 74? 13' 55'' W.
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 10:25 pm: |
|
quote:Woolner would have us believe that he happened upon the descending collapsible merely by accident, but it is far more likely that the decision to head below was engendered by premeditated strategy to head directly for "D".
Ben, now that I think about it, I have to agree with your reasoning. It was the last and best chance to be saved. Never believed the "looking for women" story.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40? 23' 50'' N, 74? 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael Poirier
Member
Username: mike_poirier
Post Number: 321
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Hello Tad and Ben-
It's great to see everyone pooling their info and the most likely scenario coming together.
I guess that's why they call it Titanic community!
I think since Steffanson did mention Lindberg-Lind in some of his accounts it was probably more Woolner that either wanted to respect the wishes of a late friend. Or perhaps he didn't want people to have the image of LL not escaping the water quick enough and getting, 'boxed in.' A sad thing to picture.
Clemency: We've been torpedoed! Oh, Mother! What shall we do?
Millicent: Get the jewelry.
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1181
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 5:24 am: |
|
Michael - thanks for posting the whereabouts of the Steffanson account. I was able to pull out the issue in question (TI's Voyage, #12) and read it.
Sam - again, thanks for the excellent diagram!
Count me also as agreeing with the new reasoning as to why Woolner and Steffanson went down to A Deck.
Bill
|
|
