Horizons
| Author
| Message
|
    
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 61
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:37 pm: |       |
Bill -
Congratulations! Your post speaks for itself. |
Paul Rogers
Member
Username: progers
Post Number: 461
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 8:10 pm: | |
Senan,
Your post and its rhetoric still doesn't answer the question of why you find it so necessary to be rude, almost all of the time, to almost everyone who happens to disagree with your point of view. You should not be surprised when people start to wonder why this is the case.
Your argument may have merit; your manner of promoting it has none at all.
Perhaps Message Boards are "extremely bad places for learning" simply because of attitudes such as yours. From now onwards I won't be bothering to post on threads to which you are contributing because, quite frankly, it's not worth the effort and I'd rather avoid the bile.
Congratulations on the "29 free Research Articles and a couple of maritime books", BTW. I'm sure they give you all the rights in the world to treat others in any manner that you choose. I think you'll find that, in reality, people are judged as much by their character and treatment of others as by their work.
It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 991
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 10:52 pm: | |
Senan:
So does your post. Many words, much rudeness, no substance. Saying something didn't happen, proves nothing.
Bill |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 497
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 5:06 am: | |
Senan: It is too bad you don't take some of your own advice. Well let's see what those that were there said shall we.
Regarding the ice field.
Capt. Lord: "It seemed to me to be running more north and south, but whilst we were stopped we were surrounded by loose ice."
Capt. Moore: "I searched for a passage to get through this pack, because I realized that the Titanic could not have been through that pack of ice, sir. I steered away to the south-southeast true, because I thought the ice appeared thinner down there, sir."
Capt. Rostron: "...and about two or three miles from the position of the “Titanic’s” wreckage we saw a huge ice-field extending as far as we could see, N.W. to S.E."
And I agree that the Californian was on the east side of the ice field. And so too was the Titanic. If anything, the line I show was running close to the general direction of that field.
As far as bearings to the mystery ship seen from the Californian, we have Lord:" I heard what it was at midnight - S.S.E. from us by compass." We have Stone: "Mr. Groves, who also pointed out ice and steamer and said our head was E.N.E. and we were swinging. On looking at the compass I saw this was correct and observed the other steamer S.S.E dead abeam."
And from Stone we have that the mystery ship was stationary until he saw the first rocket.
8043. Is not this accurate? When you came on to your watch at twelve o'clock this ship was stationary? - Yes.
8044. And except for a change in her position towards 2.40 she was stationary all the time? - No she was not stationary.
8045. Was she moving? - She started to move as soon as I saw the first rocket. She was stationary up to that time. She was stationary by our compass, at least so far as I could tell.
(My emphasis added.) The point is quite clear. When the 1st rockets were seen by Stone it came from the direction of the mystery ship. The mystery ship to that point in time was stationary and was bearing SSE magnetic from the Californian. That puts the Titanic on a line SSE magnetic (SE true) from the Californian when the 1st rockets were fired. Both the Californian and Titanic did not move. And since we know the exact position the Titanic foundered, the Californian had to be on the line I show at the time the Titanic went down.
I am not trying to fit square pegs in round holes. I'm trying to get you to see the shape of the hole that you are digging yourself into by looking away from the reality of the situation that night. The only argument you can make is that the rockets seen from the Californian were not from the Titanic but came from the mystery ship itself. And that mystery ship mysteriously started to depart the area heading SW into the ice field where she just happened to disappear about the same time the Titanic foundered as Stone believed she did. If you don't believe that, and I certainly don't, then it is up to you to explain how the mystery ship stopped SSE magnetic from the Californian and Titanic's socket signals were seen from beyond her.
I'd be happy to send you a blank chart and you fill it in so we cam all understand the situation as you perceive it.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11456
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 5:41 am: | |
Gentlemen, anything having to do with JFK is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand, and bare knuckly brawling neither proves nor disproves anything. Let's please be so kind as to stick to the points and refrain from making it personal.
Thank you for your co-operation.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon |
David Billnitzer
Member
Username: dbillnitzer
Post Number: 113
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 6:29 am: | |
It's probably obvious to many here that the question of "moving" or "stayed still" is not so one dimensional as reading Boxhall's evidence in isolation. So in answer to Senan's advice:
"Still it moves! - the Mystery Ship was moving.
The Californian stayed still. Read Boxhall's evidence, posted in the last thread."
Here are some examples, Boxhall first, and then several others. Readers can decide for themselves - was the Mystery Ship "Moving" or "Stationary?"
Notice that Lightoller and Pitman both say the light was stationary, or not moving.
(And finally, keep in mind Senan's accurate assertion that the Californian "stayed still" as you read the following snippets.)
Boxhall:
Senator Burton: Her course, as she came on, would have been nearer to your course; that is, your course was ahead, there, and she was coming in toward your course?
Mr. Boxhall: Yes, sir; she was slightly crossing it, evidently. I suppose she was turning around slowly.
Senator Burton: Is it your idea that she turned away?
Mr. Boxhall: That is my idea, sir.
Senator Burton: She kept on a general course toward the east, and then bore away from you, or what?
Mr. Boxhall: I do not think she was doing much steaming. I do not think the ship was steaming very much, because after I saw the masthead lights, she must have still been steaming, but by the time I saw her red light with my naked eye she was not steaming very much. So she had probably gotten into the ice and turned around.
Lightoller:
14149. (The Solicitor-General.) Yes, my Lord, I am going to ask him about that now. (To the Witness.)
Throughout the time that you saw this light, as far as you can judge, did it remain stationary, or did it move at all? - Perfectly stationary as far as I can recollect.
Rowe:
Senator BURTON. What sort of light was it?
Mr. ROWE. A white light.
Senator BURTON. Did you get any nearer to it?
Mr. ROWE. We did not seem to get nearer to it.
Senator BURTON. What did you conclude about it?
Mr. ROWE. We kept on pulling for it, because it was the only stationary light.
Pitman:
Senator BURTON. Are you quite sure, Mr. Pitman, that you saw a white light ahead?
Mr. PITMAN. Yes; but I am not certain what it was attached to. It may have been one of our own boats.
Senator BURTON. That is, one of the lifeboats that had been cut loose?
Mr. PITMAN. Yes; one of the lifeboats.
Senator BURTON. Could you not tell whether it was a steamer or sailing vessel coming on your course, or whether it was a floating lifeboat there right near at hand?
Mr. PITMAN. No; because there was no motion in it, no movement.
Senator BURTON. Whatever it was, it was not moving?
Mr. PITMAN. Not moving.
Crawford:
Senator SMITH. Did you see the light?
Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir; there were two lights.
Senator SMITH. How far away?
Mr. CRAWFORD. I should say it was not farther than 10 miles.
Senator SMITH. What were they; were they signals?
Mr. CRAWFORD. They were stationary masthead lights,one on the fore and one on the main. Everybody saw them - all the ladies in the boat. They asked if we were drawing nearer to the steamer, but we could not seem to make any headway, and when day broke we saw another steamer coming up which proved to be the Carpathia; and then we turned around and came back. We were the farthest boat away.
Buley:
There was a ship of some description there when she struck, and she passed right by us. We thought she was coming to us; and if she had come to us, everyone could have boarded her. You could see she was a steamer. She had her steamer lights burning. she was off our port bow when we struck, and we all started for the same light, and that is what kept the boats together.
Senator FLETCHER. But you never heard of that ship any more?
Mr. BULEY. No; we could not see anything of her in the morning when it was daylight. She was stationary all night; I am very positive for about three hours she was stationary, and then she made tracks.
Fleet:
Senator BURTON. You did not see this light of which mention has been made until you got into the
lifeboat?
Mr. FLEET. No, sir.
Senator BURTON. What was it?
Mr. FLEET. A bright light on the port bow, sir.
Senator BURTON. On the port bow?
Mr. FLEET. Yes.
Senator BURTON. Was it moving, or was it stationary?
Mr. FLEET. It did not seem to be moving at all.
Senator BURTON. Are you sure it was a light?
Mr. FLEET. It was a light, all right, because Mr. Lightoller, when I got into the boat made us pull
straight for it.
Senator BURTON. What did you think it was?
Mr. FLEET. It might have been a fisher sail, or something; it was only just one bright light. I could not say what it was.
Senator BURTON. You were in the boat with Mr. Hichens and this gentleman who was on the stand
yesterday?
Mr. FLEET. Yes, sir.
Senator BURTON. Mr. Hichens thought it was a light on a boat, did he?
Mr. FLEET. Yes. Mr. Lightoller made us pull toward it. He seen at as well as us.
Senator BURTON. You saw it before you got off the Titanic?
Mr. FLEET. Yes, sir.
Senator BURTON. What became of that light?
Mr. FLEET. We did not know. We pulled for it, but we did not seem to get any nearer to it.
Senator BURTON. Did it finally disappear?
Mr. FLEET. No. Well, it disappeared by daybreak.
Crawford:
Senator SMITH. Just tell what you did from that time that you were lowered to the water.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Kept pulling and trying to make a light, and we could not seem to get any closer to it. We kept pulling and pulling until daybreak. Then we saw the Carpathia coming up, and we turned around and came back to her.
Senator SMITH. What time did the day break on Monday?
Mr. CRAWFORD. About 4 o'clock, I should say, it began to get light.
Moore:
Senator NEWLANDS. Were you given any instruction to pull in any particular direction?
Mr. MOORE. No, sir. I think everyone pulled toward this white light.
Senator NEWLANDS. What did you think that light was at the time?
Mr. MOORE. I thought it was a fisherman. That is what I thought. It was only just one single light.
Senator NEWLANDS. Did that light disappear?
Mr. MOORE. We kept pulling for it until daylight, and we could not see a thing of it then.
Mr. JONES. He (Captain Smith) told me to row for the light, and land the passengers and return to the ship. I pulled for the light, and I found that I could not get near the light, and I stood by for a little while. I wanted to return to the ship, but the ladies were frightened, and I had to carry out the captain's orders and pull for that light; so I did so. I pulled for about two hours, and then it started to get daybreak, and we lost the light; and then all of a sudden we saw the Carpathia coming, and we turned right back and made for the Carpathia. That is all I know, sir.
Wheelton:
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.
Archer:
Senator BOURNE. Then you stood by until the Carpathia rescued you all?
Mr. ARCHER. 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.
Senator BOURNE. Was it the Carpathia you thought you saw?
Mr. ARCHER. Not in the first place.
Senator BOURNE. What was that?
Mr. ARCHER. We did not know what became of that. When we saw the Carpathia, we turned to go back.
Ismay:
18577. Did you see any light? - We saw a light a long way from us, which, I think, was a little bit on our starboard side.
18578. That is a little bit on the starboard side of the "Titanic" or your boat? - Of both.
18579. You were heading the same way? - Yes.
18580. Did you pull towards it? - We did.
18581. But without success? - We thought we gained on her, and then she seemed to draw away from us
again.
18582. Then the light disappeared? - In daylight, yes.
18583. I say the light of the vessel disappeared? - Yes, when daylight came.
Rowe:
17663. What I think you meant to tell us was, the ship had struck an iceberg, and then, after that,
before you got into the boat, you saw this light? - I went on the fore bridge.
17664. While you were on the bridge? - Yes.
17665. And afterwards you go away in the starboard collapsible boat and see some light? - Yes.
17666. At about the same sort of distance? - About the same.
17667. When you saw this light did you notice whether the head of the "Titanic" was altering either to port or starboard? - Yes.
17668. You did notice? - Yes.
17669. Was your vessel's head swinging at the time you saw this light of this other vessel? - I put it down that her stern was swinging.
17670. Which way was her stern swinging? - Practically dead south, I believe, then.
17671. Do you mean her head was facing south? - No, her head was facing north. She was coming round to starboard.
Lightoller:
Senator SMITH. Is that when you saw this light?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. Yes, sir; when we were getting the boats out.
Senator SMITH. You did not see it before then?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. I was not on deck.
Senator SMITH. You did not see it up to the time you left the deck at 10 o'clock?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. No, I did not.
Senator SMITH. But you did see a light -
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. (interposing). Two points on the port bow during the time in which I was getting out the boats.
So from these people, the light was on hand while Lightoller was turning out the boats, always seemed about the same distance away, was not moving, or was stationary, was visible until daylight (which broke at about 4 am), and remained in sight until just about the time the Carpathia came into view.
Now it's just as easy to go through the testimony and pick and choose the witnesses who described the light as moving, Boxhall foremost among them. Or argue that they were describing different lights. Or suggest that one witness was more or less accurate than another.
The point is, one man's testimony doesn't describe the entire effect.
Dave Billnitzer |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 62
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 8:46 am: | |
If we draw a direct line of trajectory from Jackie’s gun, through the Presidential neck, we can see that it would have caused the diving for cover that was seen on the Grassy Knoll.
Neither Samuel Halpern not David G. Brown are addressing these issues – and for very obvious reasons!
The fact that Jackie’s first and second shots are unsupported by the physical evidence or by any witness testimony is unimportant compared to my right to draw a line anywhere I want.
Anyway, as Samuel will agree, a whole clutch of merely-present witnesses are “not infallible.” |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 9:45 am: | |
Samuel Halpern:
>>The point is quite clear. When the 1st rockets were seen by Stone it came from the direction of the mystery ship.<<
You shouldn't mix phrases. Californian had a nearby visitor. Titanic had the Mystery Ship.
Two pairs, over the horizon from each other.
On the Boston track and the, ahem, New York track. These tracks significantly separated from each other for obvious reasons!
If you now say the Californian was on the east side of the barrier, reversing your line as necessary, then you are also putting her extremely close to the Titanic.
Leaving aside that you have now retreated completely from your previous 15-mile assertion, (and you just love to *put* Californian in different places, one day it will fit, you hope) you are now putting a stopped Californian within easy visibility of the Titanic lookouts.
Except the lookouts did not report any other ship prior to the collision -
Frederick Fleet (One of the lookouts when she struck the berg and for up to 45 minutes afterwards) said:
“We are only up there to report anything we see.” (US Inquiry p.318)
Senator Smith (Chairman of the US Inquiry): But you are expected to see—and report— anything in the path of the ship, are you not?
Fleet: Anything we see - a ship, or anything.
Sen. Smith: Anything you see? Fleet: Yes; anything we see.
End of your latest theory.
He and Lee must be pretty fallible, eh?
Meanwhile you have not been paying attention to my position either! No surprise there:
>>The only argument you can make is that the rockets seen from the Californian were not from the Titanic<<
I have always asserted the exact contrary, that they were indeed from the Titanic, from over the horizon, rising to a low-level, as testified, above the nearby visitor.
That visitor was indeed seen to the SE or SSE, but that only puts the rocket's zenith in the general area of the small to medium steamer seen by the Californian.
It emphatically does not mean that the Californian, her nearby visitor, and the unseen Titanic have all to be in a rigidly straight line. That is unlikely.
I have posted a droring in the previous thread to illustrate this.
Dave Billnitzer thinks it was copied "almost precisely" from Peter Padfield, and I must confess, I fruitlessly hunted through all his work - such as the monumental Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea - for a Jackie shooting pic.
But you know, Samuel, you must send all your various theories to the British Government, and see if they will overturn their 1992 reappraisal.
You wouldn't want to know what some of these marine professionals think of your ideas already. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 64
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:20 am: | |
Dave Billnitzer is attempting to muddy the water as to whether the Mystery Ship was moving or stationary.
This is the last desperate defence of those who describe themselves as being “anti” a British sea captain of 1912 who wasn’t very photogenic.
It is accepted that Californian was stationary and had been since 10.21pm AST. Nobody aboard says the was moving after that time or before they were alerted to the tragedy at about 5.30am the following morning.
So the Californian was stationary. And Boxhall and others describe the Mystery Ship as moving.
We remember (immediately previously post) that the Titanic lookouts, whose duty it was to report any light or ship – “anything” said Fleet – saw no other vessel at the time of impact or for a time thereafter.
Boxhall, with glasses, time and height, was tasked by Captain Smith with watching that later oncoming ship. He said it came from the west, and was supported in this by Pitman.
Boxhall’s evidence was that this ship approached head on, then turned to starboard, showing the red light on her port side to the Titanic.
She then stayed there, undoubtedly watching. Boxhall formed the opinion that she had “probably gotten into the ice,” which is consistent with a ship coming from the West side of the ice barrier (the ice-barrier running North to South) and declining to enter that ice.
Later the Mystery Ship went away, so we have three stages –
1. Oncoming movement (gleam > to masthead lights > to both sidelights visible).
2. Turn and stop (red light).
3. Departure (white stern light).
It is not an either/or in the “stationary stakes.”
This is where Dave Billnitzer is deliberately trying to sow confusion.
There is, accordingly, no inconsistency in people referring to the MS being stationary at a particular stage, which was a long stage.
In response to Br 14147, Lightoller says: “I cannot say how long I noticed it. I saw it perhaps half an hour, probably about half an hour. I can recollect seeing it for about half an hour.”
Of course Lightoller was phenomenally busy all night, whereas Boxhall was tasked to the Mystery Ship. Captain Smith also watched her and he and Boxhall came to similar views.
These men were there, and Dave Billnitzer and I were not. We can only go on the evidence. (Plus the physical reality of the wreck site.)
A moving light will look stationary from a pursuing moving lifeboat. Just as if you see a ship from a beach she will hardly appear to be moving.
The proof that the Mystery Ship had moved off - from a position where Lightoller said she was (Br 14140) “certainly not over five miles away” - lies in the fact that lifeboats pulled towards her for two hours before Carpathia hove into view.
They made no progress – as they should have done towards a stationary ship, if that Mystery Ship was the Californian.
It was dawn at 4am and shortly thereafter it was bright. That’s all in the evidence. (US p. 109, 114, 292, 350…)
The Californian did not move until 6am.
If that MS was the stationary Californian, as Dave Billnitzer would have us believe, then all lifeboats would have been able to see her gigantically.
This is not hard to understand.
There is no evidence of anyone seeing such a stationary ship – even rowing at say 2mph [less than walking pace] for two hours (=4 miles) towards a ship that Lightoller said was not more than five miles away.
They all turned round and were picked up by the Carpathia.
Here is Crawford in evidence from boat 8, the boat that was told by Captain Smith to make towards the MS and to come back as soon as possible for more people:
Br 18052 You have not told us what distance you rowed in the direction of these lights?
Crawford — I should say between 3 and 4 miles.
(See Titanic officer estimates of the ship being five miles away!) By the time the morning came we were furthest away from the Carpathia.
18053 Did they (these Mystery Ship lights) ever appear to get any nearer? — No.
Yet Dave and Samuel would have this MS be the stationary Californian.
Impossible.
The reason the self-described “Anti-Lordites” swim like fish in a barrel is because they are prisoners of their desired situation and ultimately have no evidence to defend it.
This is why they must, ultimately, denigrate all the Titanic witnesses.
This is why they will not address a single one of the 10 reasons I posted as to why the Californian CANNOT be the MS, and of course I have more.
They cannot get Californian to the south - from “Boston” to “New York” - because no-one testifies to that.
And they cannot answer my challenge of providing a single compelling reason why the MS must be the Californian.
This alone should speak volumes.
And thus they feel they must pursue deceptions that are fundamentally “Anti-Truthite.”
Because maintaining the carefully-constructed fiction of 1912 (officially rescinded in the MAIB reappraisal 80 years later) is more important to them than embracing reality.
Sad. |
John Flood
Member
Username: j_flood
Post Number: 47
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi Folks,
Don't know if this is a runner or not, but would it be beyond all possibility that the mystery ship seen by the Titanic, was the same 'unknown' ship seen by the Carpathia, coming out of the east at 3.15am?
It was certainly coming from the general direction of where the Titanic sank, was on the east side of the ice field, and it was not stationary, unlike the Californian. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 65
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 6:20 pm: | |
Hi John,
Good to see someone thinking... I believe, on balance, that is unlikely, but this was another of the many ships that were cited that night and never run to ground.
You are correct that the Californian was stationary at all relevant periods.
Whereas the Mystery Ship later departed.
Here is more evidence of that from Titanic survivors for the benefit of those with an open mind, unlike the gentlemen here with whom I am having a dialogue to the deaf and badinage with the blind:
THE MYSTERY SHIP GOING AWAY... (Evidence!!)
AB George Symons
11712 Did you row towards the light that you had mentioned ? —We were rowing for the light.
The light bearing roughly on our port beam when we were rowing away from the ship.
11715 Did you appear to be catching it up at all? —No I thought my own self she was gradually going away from us.
Quartermaster Robert Hichens
1183 Could you tell at all whether the light was moving or whether at was still ?—The light was MOVING, gradually disappearing. We did not seem to get no nearer to it.
1184 As I understand you, it seemed to get further away from you ?—Yes, Sir.
Lookout Fred Fleet
We pulled for it, but we did not seem to get any nearer to it... Senator Smith: How close could you get to it? Fleet: She was GETTING AWAY off... (US p.326)
Able Seaman Frank Osman
Senator Burton: When did you last have a sight of that light? - About an hour afterwards.
What do you think about it? Did it sail away? - Yes, sir; she sailed right away. (US p.539)
Able Seaman William Lucas
1804. You saw nothing more of the vessel to which those lights belonged? —No; the light went further away every time we looked at it.
Night Watchman James Johnson: 3503. Did this light seem to get fainter or did it disappear suddenly?—When we got away it disappeared altogether.
Steward Alfred Crawford
Senator Smith. Did you see any more of that light than you have now described?
Crawford: No. At daybreak it seemed to disappear. We came around and came back. (US p.828)
Quartermaster George Rowe:
Senator Burton: Do you think there was a sailing boat there? Rowe: Yes, sir.
Sen. Burton: And was she going away from you?
Rowe: Toward daylight the wind sprung up and she sort of hauled off from us. (US p.524)
Able Seaman Edward Buley:
There was a ship of some description there when she struck (this “when she struck” is a lazy phrase: Buley was “sitting in the mess reading when she struck” in his own evidence [p.603 US] and he first saw the light “when turning the boats out” after midnight [p.612])… and she PASSED right by us. We thought she was COMING to us; and if she had come to us, everyone could have boarded her. You could see she was a steamer. She had her steamer lights burning…
Senator Fletcher: How far away was she?
Buley: Three miles, sir, I should judge….. No; we could not see anything of her in the morning when it was daylight. She was stationary all night; I am very positive for about three hours she was stationary, and then she MADE TRACKS.
….Senator Fletcher: Did you see that ship before you were in the water?
Buley: Yes, sir; I saw it from the ship. That is what we told the passengers. We said, "There is a steamer coming to our assistance." That is what kept them quiet, I think.
Senator Fletcher: Did she come toward you bow on?
Buley: Yes, sir; bow on toward us; and then she stopped, and the lights seemed to go right by us.
Senator Fletcher: If she had gone by you, she would have been to your stern?
Buley: She was stationary there for about three hours, I think, off our port, there, and when we were in the boat we all made for her, and she went by us. The northern lights are just like a searchlight, but she disappeared… (US p.611)
Of course Dave Billnitzer would rather have people think otherwise. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 66
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 6:25 pm: | |
Just for Samuel Halpern:
You will recall that Jackie then crawled to the end of the Lincoln Continental and handed the gun by prior arrangement to Special Agent Clint Hill...
Smart.
About as smart as some of the "theories" I've seen posted here.
Never mind the facts, the witnesses, the presence of icefields, eh boys? Any theory is as good as another.
Yeah, right. |
Monica Hall
Moderator
Username: monica
Post Number: 1284
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 7:49 pm: | |
"The northern lights are just like a searchlight, but she disappeared… "
What did Buley mean by this? It seems to suggest good illumination, and I've never heard anyone mention the northern lights before in connection with 14.04. Or have I misunderstood him? |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 498
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:29 pm: | |
Monica: Yes there were northern lights visible that night. From someone else (a well known 2nd class passenger and author) who was there that night in boat 13:
"So in the absence of any plan of action, we rowed slowly forward--or what we thought was forward, for it was in the direction the Titanic's bows were pointing before she sank. I see now that we must have been pointing northwest, for we presently saw the Northern Lights on the starboard, and again, when the Carpathia came up from the south, we saw her from behind us on the southeast, and turned our boat around to get to her. I imagine the boats must have spread themselves over the ocean fanwise as they escaped from the Titanic: those on the starboard and port sides forward being almost dead ahead of her and the stern boats being broadside from her; this explains why the port boats were so much longer in reaching the Carpathia--as late as 8.30 A.M.--while some of the starboard boats came up as early as 4.10 A.M. Some of the port boats had to row across the place where the Titanic sank to get to the Carpathia, through the debris of chairs and wreckage of all kinds."
Not so strange is it that Beesley also concludes the Titanic was pointing towards the NW in the general direction to where the Californian was on that NW-SE true line of bearing that I showed in my earlier post. Of course he did not take precise bearings or anything of the sort. But his sense of direction was not too far off because we know that the Carpathia came up from the SE where he said he saw her. (This of course being confirmed by Capt. Rostron, heading N 52°W true.) Right from the opposite direction from which they were headed.
As far as the northern lights being a searchlight, well not quite. They tend to spread across the sky somewhat. Attached is a photograph that I myself took of the northern lights several years ago. They are quite impressive.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 499
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 1:43 am: | |
Senan: I guess you like to say that I put the Californian in different places. So if you want to post what I said, then please post exactly what I said and not your biased interpretation of what I said. Let me be perfectly clear once and for all.
The chart I put up shows known and reported positions. The line I drew is line of bearing that the Californian had to have been on if she saw the rockets come from SE true (SSE magnetic) as specifically reported by Stone and Lord. Although the Californian had stopped for the night it does not mean she remained still. Both the Californian and Titanic, or for that matter any other ship stopped in that area, would drift with the local current. So although Lord may have believed he stopped at 42° 05’N, 50° 07’W, he had no way of confirming this at 10:21 PM and certainly had no way to fix his position at the time the Titanic foundered. His actual course, by the way, was not on a direct track to Boston as you said. He was actually making for 42° N, 51°W since noon to stay just south of the Boston track because of ice reports. (From Lord’s 1959 affidavit: “I steered this course to make longitude 51°W in latitude 42°N on account of ice reports which had been received.”) But the key point is that the Californian had to have been affected by the same current that affected the Titanic, that affected the field ice and the icebergs in that area pushing them to the southward. For some reason you insist the Californian was in the same position in the morning as it was at 10:21 PM, and that view my friend, is utterly unrealistic and ignores the reality that is confirmed by the wreck position and the location of the wreckage as reported by the Californian late in the morning.
I’m off to see my granddaughter and celebrate her 3rd birthday this Thursday. Yes, she was born St. Patrick’s Day 3 years ago. Enough Titanic for now.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
US $474.60 1 Bid
