Archive through 14 March, 2005
| Author
| Message
|
    
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 44
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 10:00 am: |       |
Not much comment necessary here, just a bit of time studying the illustration underneath.
Your horizon depends on your height, also taking into account such marginal issues as atmosphere, refraction and the curvature of the earth.
The people at Titanic International Society put this graphic together fifteen years ago. They have previously allowed it to be reproduced, and I hope it will prove instructive here.
It shows the visible distance for Californian and Titanic lookouts.
It also conforms to an age-old formula, very well known to mariners and indeed more widely, although the Titanic circle looks a little off centre to me.
Titanic did not have the height of even modern passenger ferries or cruise ships - it was long where they are squat.
This graphic demonstrates the position very well, and we remember naturally that the Titanic and Californian both had very visible ships well within their horizons.
Perfectly simple. Rational. Beyond obscurantist insistence that the Californian must be the Titanic's mystery ship. {Because we WANT her to be...]
This is the position I always try to draw on pub tables for Inger Sheil with various bits of beermat, which is generally a folly given our inevitable circumstances at that hour of the night when talk finally comes around to the Mystery Ship. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 10:41 am: | |
It also assumes that the two ships remained 21 miles apart. A lower distance, such as 15 miles that I and others have advocated, would put them within visible range of each other.
By the way, perhaps other can confirm this: I didn't think the Californian's bridge height was 49 feet above sea level. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 10:45 pm: | |
No Paul,
Because if you claim that the Californian is the Titanic's Mystery Ship and that she (Titanic)is the ship seen by the Californian -
Then Titanic MUST be within Californian's visible horizon, which as Samuel has pointed out is 7.8 nautical miles.
At 15 miles, not only will Californian not see anything, but neither will Titanic see anything as her visible horizon is less than ten miles as demonstrated above.
Full stop.
Furthermore, if you managed to freeze all the sea around the Titanic, invert her prow in the ice so that she stands on end (as in her advertising) and if you sit up there on the word "Liverpool," 882 and a half feet high, any ship you see at 15 miles will be just a gleam.
It will not have the masts, red sidelight, and "beautiful lights" stated in evidence to have been seen by Boxhall.
If you want to get Titanic closer to Californian, you have to construct a scenario how that happens.
Titanic sank south of the New York track.
Proof on the sea bed.
Californian stayed north of the 42nd parallel.
Agreed by all on board. No-one says she went south. Groves, who thought afterwards the ship he saw pre-midnight was, in retrospect, the Titanic, agreed with his Captain's stop position.
Everything about Californian's course is perfectly clear, from the pre-accident wireless messages of her position, to the trio of icebergs she saw (whose presence was independently confirmed) and which Californian could not have seen had she been off course.
I am sorry to disappoint you, but the scientific fact is that anything 15 miles away from either the Titanic or the Californian is utterly hull down.
Neither of the ships seen by those two vessels were hull down. Sidelights remember. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1194
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:14 pm: | |
Talking about science:
Learn some physics. Take a look at Allard's law. This will tell you how far a light source can be seen for a given power output.
By the way, to find the total observable distance from a ship at a certain height, you need to add the distances together. If the Californian and the Titanic were in view of each pther, the total distrance is 7.8 + 9.5 nm.
I checked this in a 1970s copy of Lloyd's Calendar, so this is right. You ADD the distances together. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:21 pm: | |
Just to clarify, the distances quoted in that sketch above refer to the HORIZON. If there is something beyond the horizon, and it is of sufficient height, it can still be seen; lighthouses for instance.
You can use the values quoted in a table in Lloyd's Calender, or use the expression
distance to horizon in nautical miles = 1.14 * square root ( height of observer in feet) |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1196
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:34 pm: | |
Just knocked up this quick sketch.
So, according to you, in the sketch "Me" can't see "Mr.Big" winking at him and waving?
 |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 46
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:45 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
Love the clarion call to learn physics! And now I can't wait for the time when abnormal meteorological conditions to manifest themselves.
The basic rule is:
1.17 times the square root of your height of eye = Distance to the horizon in nautical miles.
It is true that if you want to calculate the distance at which an object becomes visible, you must know your height of eye and the height of the other object. You then add the distances together.
But you ASSUME, once again, that Titanic and Californian are seeing each other, cannibalising the Titanic's greater height, as it were.
Whereas Californian witnesses only saw a "small to medium steamer" 4-7 miles away. Your problem, not mine.
Meanwhile fifteen miles is still fifteen miles!
You will only see a gleam.
You will not see a hull.
You will not see sidelights.
You will not see masts.
You will not see "beautiful lights" or, as Boxhall said later, "brightly shining portholes."
And he said this on more than one occasion.
You, in adding the distances together, are again assuming that the Californian must have been seeing the Titanic, when the gap is unclosable.
Maybe you would agree that the Deputy Chief Inspector of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch would be well qualified to pronounce on such matters.
"Titanic's speed, maintained until collision at 11.40pom, suggests that if at the time she was five miles from the Californian, then at 11pm she will be nearly 20 miles away, which is a very long way away for her to be seen," he writes in the MAIB report.
That's based on Groves seeing the light at 11pm. Captain Lord saw the light which resolved itself into "something like ourselves" at 10.30pm, a fact the DIC overlooked. And he saw it from the deck *below* the bridge.
Applying Lord Mersey's stopped distance of 8-10 miles, plus the application to that light of Titanic's speed (since you say it is Titanic) means Captain Lord would have been seeing the alleged-Titanic at 32 miles.
This is nearly four times the Californian's visible horizon, even for the loom of a light, rather than a hull.
The Deputy Chief Inspector adds:
"It is in my view inconceivable that Californian or any other ship was within the visible horizon of Titanic during that period; it equally follows that Titanic cannot have been within Californian's horizon."
I presume he knows his physics. We are not talking about Star Trek, a series not known for adhering to physical laws.
Californian's bridge height, from plans, was 45ft, not 49' by the way, and I admit that box in the diagram is rather obscure.
I would say to you, learn the Titanic evidence.
Boxhall, unlike us, was there. He was the man tasked by Captain Smith with attracting the attention of that vessel.
He had height, he had time, he had glasses. And he saw her approach (Californian stationary), saw her turn to present a port light, and says she "probably" got into the ice.
And she says she was five miles.
Do you, a man born in the very latter part of the last century, one of little nautical experience, not there in 1912, say that Boxhall must be wrong?
I stand by the Titanic evidence. You appear to be fifteen miles away. |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 12:05 am: | |
I do know the evidence thank you.
And by the way, if you are talking about science, don't lecture me. I have a PhD in physics and they don't award those to thickos.
Alright, Titanic's sidelights were 60 feet above the waterline, and Californian's were, by your figures 49.
Total distance = 1.14*( sqrt(60) + sqrt(49) )
Now, say you were on the Titanic,with your line of sight 6 feet above the boat deck. Thats 66 feet if you can't do the maths. How far above the waterline, over the horizon could you see.
Well, total distance = D, which I shall say is 15 miles
D = 1.14*(sqrt(66) + sqrt (h))
where h is how much of the other ship above the waterline, you would see, and hence over the horizon. Lets plug the numbers in and do a bit of algebra.
((15/1.14) - sqrt(66))^2 = 25 feet.
Thus, anything 25 feet above the waterline can be seen. Since a lot of the hull, superstructure, side lights, mast lights, engine room skylight etc. are well above this, they can be seen.
Lets see how far the two ships have to be for the Titanic NOT to see the Californian's sidelight:
D=1.14*(sqrt(66)+sqrt(49))
= 17.2 miles |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 982
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 2:37 am: | |
Let's talk facts.
The position of the wreck is a known fact. The position that the Titanic gave in the wireless distress call is a fact.
The position of the Californian is NOT a fact. It is the position that Lord and the officers gave at the Inquiries, true. But that does not guarantee that the position is absolutely correct. A mistake may have been made, as Boxhall may have made calculating the Titanic's position that night.
An assumption about one point of a triangle proves nothing about distances or angles.
Bill |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 47
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 8:43 am: | |
Morning Paul,
What I love about this thread is that it is just you and me – with an unseen audience of hundreds –and you are now so far advanced along the canyon that there is no going back.
I have to tell you that I have an argument that I am waiting to deploy that will finally shrivel and destroy the 15-mile argument you are advancing. I am going to detonate that shortly, and Boxhall, wherever he is now, should like it –because it will result in ‘beautiful lights.’
So your argument is doomed, but you don’t yet realise why.
You are haunting this thread and replying rapidly – and a failure to do so in the future will result in that unseen audience drawing conclusions…
Meanwhile let’s review where you are.
You haven't got those two circles posted at the top of this thread to intersect, as you must, for Californian and Titanic to see each other.
Despite much boasting about your PhD.
You, of little nautical experience (any?), do not agree with the Deputy Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents who investigated this matter for the British Government in 1992.
I could put you in touch with two former Chief Inspectors, who you would also disagree with. But I won’t.
You are ignoring the points made (above) by Officer Boxhall.
This must be because:
a) You are smarter than Officer Boxhall, who had the impudence to be there in 1912.He has made a series of mistakes not just one or two. He, of course, does not have a PhD.
or
b) You have an imagined an entirely different Mystery Ship, all for yourself, than the one that appeared in reality.
Now I want you to show the unseen audience that you think you are smarter than Captain Smith of the RMS Titanic.
Captain Smith, as Lord Mersey observed, thought the Mystery Ship was close.
He thought boat 6 could row to her (row 15 miles?), and should land their passengers, and come back with her to the scene.
That’s what he told a number of people, who, perversely, gave evidence to that effect.
Jones, Crawford, Rothes, I could go on.
Silly-billy Smith, Paul? No PhD for Smith.
Smith, who thought the Mystery Ship was close enough to be signalled by Morse lamp, and gave orders that it be done? “Come at once, we are sinking…”
Silly-billy Smith?
Fifteen miles? The best Morse lamps could only be read at a maximum of ten miles. And that’s with the very sharpest of observers.
Smith the commodore of the White Star Line, at sea nearly fifty years, not a graduate student in 2005.
When you are finished ignoring Smith – and the unseen audience will draw the necessary conclusions – we will move on to the other Titanic officers, who saw a red light early in the night.
Not alone could they NOT have seen a sidelight at 15 miles, but Californian (swinging “very, very slowly” according to ‘whistleblower’ Groves) was presenting a green light to her own nearby visitor at all relevant stages.
And then I will detonate the final logic bomb to finally obliterate a 15-mile theory and Samuel’s 14-mile theory.
Any idea what it is yet?
I have a drawing to go with it!
And nobody will need a PhD to understand any of it! Even a "thicko" will see it, because you are confirming it every step of the way.
Please do reply soonest!!
Senan |
Philip Hind
Moderator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 12-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:02 am: | |
Right, maybe we can bring this to an amicable conclusion and I mean a conclusion.
Everyone is on notice to keep this discussion at a friendly level and that includes not winding each other (or me) up. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 48
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:35 am: | |
Hi Phil,
I think I will need about four posts to wrap up the claim that the Californian was Titanic's Mystery Ship seen at a distance of 15 miles.
First, we have seen how this claim contradicts both Officer Boxhall, the prime witness, and Captain Smith.
It also contradicts the other officers:
Estimates by Titanic officers:
Second Officer Charles Herbert Lightoller:
14140- Certainly not over 5 miles away.
Third Officer Herbert Pitman
15062.- I thought it was about five miles.
(in Ryan v OSNC, 1913, offered 2 miles)
Fifth Officer Harold Lowe: 15825 …I glanced over in that direction casually and I saw a steamer there.
15826. What did you see of her? —I saw her two masthead and her red side lights.
(implying closeness because sidelights had to be seen a regulation two miles)
And not only all the surviving Titanic officers, above, but crew members thought the same. A representative sample:
Four Quartermasters!
QM Walter Wynn: 13340. - About seven or eight miles.
QM Arthur John Bright (US p.836): possibly four or five miles away.
QM George Rowe: 17659. - Four or five miles.
QM Robert Hichens: 1162 - about five miles away.
Three Able Seamen!
AB George Moore: (US p.564): -- Two or three miles away, I should judge.
AB Edward Buley: (US p.611): I should judge she was about three miles.
AB John Poingdexter: 3089 - A matter of four or five miles.
[AB Thomas Jones, former lookout, ordered by Smith to pull for the light. No distance offered.]
A lookout!
Lookout Reginald Lee: 2719- five or six miles.
Fleet offers no miles, but could see the light from the lifeboat and said she was “getting away off.”
Other lookouts were not asked.
I could go on with firemen, cooks, stewards, scullions, but there are all the main
deck personnel above who testified to the point.
All trained observers of lights at sea.
On a point of information:
Paul's use of 1.14 as a factor in determining nautical horizon is not being fair to his own argument.
He appears to be using a formula for an astronomical horizon (involving planets) rather than one confined to this sphere.
The correct factor should be 1.17 at sea, as nautical lecturer Samuel Halpern has indicated.
This 1.17 will give you extra distance, Paul, and I want you to have every advantage. Because I will be making use of this formula later.
In relation to Californian, it can be demonstrated like this:
Californian bridge height 45ft. The formula uses the square root of this figure to multiply against 1.17.
The square root of 45 is 6.7.
6.7 multiplied by 1.17 is 7.8 nautical miles. Which is Californian’s visible horizon as Samuel Halpern correctly pointed out in the last thread.
The audience will remember that I did not disagree with him on this point.
If you use 1.14 you only get 7.6.
Regards - Senan |
Paul Rogers
Member
Username: progers
Post Number: 449
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 11:03 am: | |
I tried to post this yesterday, but missed out by a matter of minutes when Phil closed the discussion! Anyway, I wanted to bring up the issue re: burden of proof.
It is a known fact that Titanic and Californian were sufficiently close enough to each other so that the latter saw at least the former's socket signals, if not their navigation lights as well. Senan, you are arguing that there was not one, but two, other "mystery ships" also in the vicinity. As there is no formal or tangible evidence extant for the presence of these mystery ships the burden of proof falls on you in this regard.
To satisfy this burden of proof (at least to my satisfaction) you would have to address two key points:
1. What are the two (or more) likely candidates for the role of mystery ships and what evidence do you have that they were in the vicinity of Titanic and Californian? You will recall that I have asked you this question twice before on the "Middle Watch" thread, and did not receive a answer.
2. Human nature being what it is, I would have expected at least one deathbed confession from a crew member of these mystery ships - or at the very least, a relative coming forward with a story about their family's "hidden secret." After all, there are some ships almost vying for the "honour" of being a mystery ship (e.g. Samson) when they could not possibly have actually been present at the time. So how do you account for the silence of these crewmen? Did both ships sink shortly thereafter?
I'll leave the mathematical arguments to those best equipped to discuss them. I can barely balance my cheque book!
It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 49
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 1:28 pm: | |
Paul R,
You will forgive me for not pursuing stragglers into the forest. I am embarked on shattering the notion that the Californian was the Titanic's Mystery Ship.
Let me get finish with this central issue, and the argument advanced that the Mystery Ship was Californian and was 15 miles away - with no other distractions.
Some time ago I asked for someone – anyone - to advance me a single good reason why the ship seen by the Titanic MUST be the Californian.
No-one has done so. Bill would like Californian to be the Mystery Ship, but he can't provide evidence to get the Californian to the south. And south she must go in this scenario, because the Titanic position is now locked in.
Leaving aside the fact that no-one on the Californian says she went south, it is her evidence (not disputed by anyone on board) that she did not begin to move until 6am – shortly after getting the shocking news by wireless that Titanic had transmitted an SOS.
So, folks, go back to the shaded circles at the top of this thread.
Say you choose to believe that all on board the Californian were lying (including the ‘whistleblowers,’ unfortunately) and that she was in reality much closer to the Titanic than the 21 miles shown above.
Say you conclude that the Titanic witnesses are uniformly "mistaken" about the proximity of their Mystery Ship - as demonstrated above.
[And I await Paul Lee citing a single Titanic witness who says the Mystery Ship was 15 miles away, or even 14 miles, Samuel...]
Go ahead and ignore this background. Pull the Californian down a few squares from where she is in the graphic at the top of this thread…
Because fresh problems will be created!
Mount Temple says she arrived at the SOS position at 4.30am, but could see no other ship (except a two master which had previously crossed her path).
Look how close you have now pulled down the Californian to the SOS position. The shade circles (visible horizons) of both these ships must intersect, if not virtually overlap to satisfy the 5-miles and 4-7 mile testimony of both ships' witnesses.
Mount Temple must see Californian in this scenario, of Cal being dragged south. She does NOT see any such vessel.
Leave the Californian in your new adjusted position (because she has to get south to be the Titanic’s Mystery Ship, yeah?). Behold! Here comes the Carpathia...
Carpathia arrives and can see a four-masted ship (Mount Temple) and the two-master.
Captain Rostron of sainted memory helpfully says all this in evidence to the British Inquiry:
25551. “We then saw two steamships to the northwards, perhaps seven or eight miles distant. Neither of them was the ‘Californian.’ One of them was a four-masted steamer with one funnel, and the other a two-masted steamer with one funnel. I never saw the ‘Mount Temple’ to identify her. The first time that I saw the ‘Californian’ was at about eight o’clock on the morning of 15th April."
So Californian, being stationary (unlike the Mystery Ship which approached and later departed) **could not** have been to the south without being seen before 6am.
Put her back to the north. Remember that Californian had Polaris (the latitude star for determining your position on the North-South axis), and they had dead reckoning, and they saw a trio of icebergs where those icebergs were, and which were seen and independently verified.
The Californian knew where she herself was. It is unsupported to drag her to the south without convincing explanation. No-one can cite evidence to support the contention.
Bill, you doubt her stated position. But do you see that her testified stop position actually put her head in the noose in 1912? Because they saw rockets to the southEAST, not to the southWEST, where the Inquiry believed Titanic actually was (at the SOS position).
Why would people who were lying about their position wilfully put their heads on the chopping block?
Meanwhile here are a TEN reasons why the Mystery Ship seen by the Titanic is NOT the Californian:
1) Mystery Ship moving. Californian stationary from 10.21 by testimony of all aboard.
2) MS showing a red light from very early on (read Boxhall, see Lowe & ors), Californian displaying a green light at this time to any vessel to the south.
3) Closeness of the MS to the Titanic by the Titanic evidence. How do you get Californian down all those nautical miles to the south?
4) Since Californian was heading virtually due west and stopped at 10.21pm, as an eleven-knot ship she cannot fire up her boilers and get down to the Titanic to be within five miles.
5) Closeness of the Californian's visitor to the Californian. She is only a "small to medium" steamer with "a few indistinct lights," "two or three" - how can this be the Titanic?
6) Rockets reach only halfway up the mastlight of that near ship to the Californian. Titanic's rockets worked perfectly.
7) Californian at the ice barrier, Titanic in open water. Look at the separation on the East-West barrier. The Californian's small to medium visitor is right at the ice as well.
8) Titanic's mystery ship turns and goes away and Boxhall and others see a stern light before the Titanic has sunk. Many witnesses say the MS went away. Californian did not get underway and leave her position until 6am by the evidence of all on board.
9) Carpathia cannot see Californian the next morning. Rostron sees a two-masted steamer and a four-master (Mount Temple) and specifically says: "Neither was the Californian." Dawn from 4am. Californian stood still until 6am.
10) Moore of the Mount Temple says he reaches the SOS position at 4.30, but he can't see any other vessel but the two-masted small steamer later seen by Rostron. Wouldn't he see Californian if she was close by at that time?
I think I could probably come up with another ten reasons (such as the fact that Lee and Fleet couldn’t see another ship – supposedly the stationary Californian! - while they were up in the crow’s nest), but 10-0 is a good point to rest.
No reason at all is offered by the other side as to why the Titanic’s MS must be the Californian. Draw your own conclusions.
Don't worry, I will be exploding that logic bomb under the 15-mile Mystery Ship argument very shortly.
Regards - Senan |
Paul Rogers
Member
Username: progers
Post Number: 450
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 1:59 pm: | |
OK - I'm going to bow out at this stage because there's very little I can add to this ongoing debate which I haven't already said. I'd like to voice one final thought, however:
"Some time ago I asked for someone – anyone - to advance me a single good reason why the ship seen by the Titanic MUST be the Californian."
How about this for an answer: Because there was NO OTHER ship within the vicinity. Therefore, as Californian was the only ship close to Titanic, she must have been Titanic's mystery ship.
Now Senan, rather than proving Californian wasn't the mystery ship, prove instead that there was at least one other ship present which could inherit that title, by using hard, physical evidence, including the name of this potential candidate.
Methinks you'll have to pursue those stragglers into the forest to prove your case to the unbelievers; or to me, at least.
It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 50
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 4:01 pm: | |
Paul R,
Guess what - you're right! But only in a particular kind of way.
There was NO OTHER ship within the vicinity when the Titanic struck.
Listen to the Titanic lookouts:
Fleet (US Inq): There was no lights at all when we was up in the crow's nest.
This is after we were down and on the (life)boats [preparing lifeboats]; THEN I seen the light. (Emphasis added)
Senator Smith: Where did you see it?
Fleet: On the port bow. The other lookout [the relief lookouts of Hogg and Evans] reported it.
(NOTE: Boxhall later confirmed in a document uncovered by Inger Sheil that the *approach* of a light had been first announced by the second pair of lookouts who relieved Fleet and Lee at 12.23am when the Titanic clocks were put back to midnight)
Continuing:
Senator Smith: How far ahead?
Mr Fleet: It was not ahead; it was on the bow, about four points.
Senator Smith: I am not speaking of that. I wanted to know whether you saw ahead, while
you were on the watch, on the lookout, Sunday night, after the collision occurred or before, any lights of any other ship.
Mr Fleet: No, sir.
Senator Smith: You saw no lights at all?
Fleet: No, sir.
REGINALD LEE, British Inquiry:
2419. Before half-past eleven on that watch had you reported anything at all, do you remember? Lee: "There was nothing to be reported."
Terse. And to the point.
We know that the evidence is that the Californian was stationary and had been since 10.21pm.
She was even kind enough to send this information to all shipping. It got through to the Titanic - but the Titanic famously didn't want to know.
Meanwhile Captain Lord of the Californian stated this:
7118/9. How far do you think from your (masthead) lights would be observable by another ship ?
- I suppose the masthead lights you would see 7 or 8 miles - 8 miles I should think.
7120. Suppose the Titanic was 7 or 8 miles from you between 11 30 and 12 o’clock, would those on her bridge have been able to see your lights? -EASILY.
There is a lot I could tell you Paul about that Mystery Ship, a lot indeed. It is interesting,for one thing, why she was going the *wrong way* (meeting Titanic as Boxhall, Pitman and others say) - when this was a one-way track, leading from East (Europe to West).
I'll let you think about that one.
Finally, the onus of proof should surely have been on the "prosecution" which "convicted" Californian 90 years ago.
There is not a single reason why the Titanic's Mystery Ship MUST be the Californian, and your attempted answer -
"as Californian was the only ship close to Titanic, she must have been"
- is materially deficient. I could name you at least seven ships cited in the evidence and never run to ground, whereas the MAIB Inquiry considered that probably many ships saw the Titanic rockets.
My other opponent must have a dental appointment or something.
I would like the 15-mile and 14-mile proponents, and all these supposedly like-minded researchers to be present when the logic bomb goes off.
Regards - Senan |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1663
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 5:57 pm: | |
Senan,
As you know, I am just a bystander in this debate, more than willing to listen to what others have to say without contributing much myself. I have enough trouble stepping out of the Marconi Room (and lately, the Turkish Bath) as it is to go to the rail and look for the Californian.
Out of curiosity, I read through the posts in this thread -- only those posted in the last day or so -- and find the arguments illuminating. I do have a question or two that will probably show my ignorance more than anything (it's literally been years since I read TSTSS and I've done nothing in the interim to keep my memory fresh):
- You say that Californian was headed west but only showed her green light to the south. I don't follow that. I forget...didn't Californian swing while she drifted? Is that why you say she showed only her green light to the south? I really need to refresh my memory on the details.
- Paul asked where the mystery ship could be. He asks if it could have sunk without a trace. I am aware of a good number of ships of that time that disappeared without a trace, especially those not equipped with a wireless. Have you looked into any reported disappearances around that time?
- However, even that won't be evidence enough. Let's say for argument that the "mystery ship" didn't sink. How, then, do you explain the silence of the crew and these years? Would it be too much of a coincidence that they all died before one could tell his story? Life at sea can be notoriously hazardous, especially during a world war or two.
Now that the emotions have cooled a bit, I find much to learn from this discussion.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 51
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 6:42 pm: | |
Parks,
I did not, and do not, say Californian was headed West. She was pointing NE by her evidence. Groves (the whistleblower) says she was swinging "very, very slowly."
I say that Boxhall (I wasn't there) plus Pitman, supported by others, say that the Titanic was back heading west when the Mystery Ship appeared.
See their evidence.
I don't see the need to show all my hand here, Parks, but I have identified 17 people who say something about a particular ship, my research paper on Mount Temple lists 13 alleged witnesses to Titanic rockets on her, and as I say there are many formally unidentified ships cited in evidence.
They include Rostron's 3.15am steamer, Moore's schooner, the yellow funnel vessel on the East side of the ice barrier seen by Stone and Stewart around 5.30am, the two-masted steamer with the "device of some kind," the Almerian, another Leyland liner, seen by Captain Lord heading north on the West side of the icefield the next morning...
I could go on and on.
Why did none of these ships come forward in the aftermath? Well, they saw what happened to the Californian.
Besides which, no-one was looking for them. Although the British did look for Moore's red herring of the "heraldic device" steamer.
There are dozens of other ships with reports of their being in the vicinity. Assuredly the vast majority of these will be tripe. But there was no meaningful investigation.
Adn you can finally take it that I do not consider the Samson to be a candidate for Mystery Ship - and not for the reasons many others offer up.
When people stop going on about the Californian, there is much that can be established about the MS that is most illuminating.
Unfortunately, Parks, I am not going to discuss alternatives here. I told Phil Hind I would be brief, and I have one more post left. Everyone knows where to get my stuff anyway, should they want to read it.
No, I am just waiting for one or two others to show up so that I can detonate the logic bomb to obliterate the 14-mile or 15-mile theory of the Californian as Mystery (but quite far off) Ship.
Maybe you should come to the BTS one of these days. I am sure we would have a most interesting chat about life, sport, politics and nautical matters. Not to mention WW2!
Regards
Senan |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1664
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 7:03 pm: | |
Senan,
I would have to drastically improve my financial situation before I could afford to come to the UK and/or Ireland. And rest assured that if I were to arrange it, my family will not allow me to leave without bringing them along. They, of course, would not allow me to immerse myself fully into Titanic, as I would were I alone. Nevertheless, a trip across the pond is on the top of my "want" list.
Was this a typo, then, when you posted above, "Since Californian was heading virtually due west and stopped at 10.21pm," or did I take that entirely out of context? I'm not trying to nail you on a detail when you have answered my concern by saying that Californian was pointing NE, but rather trying to keep everything straight in my head.
I have your book and need to re-read it after I'm done with my current projects. I really wasn't prepared to jump into this thread...I was on the bridge dismantling the engine-order telegraphs when I saw a few rockets flare up outside and stepped out on the wing for a moment to watch the pretty colours. I'll go back to my work and return after I've done my homework.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1665
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 7:29 pm: | |
You know, a thought just occurred to me as I was standing out on the port bridge wing. Since it seems as though the majority of witnesses reported the light off Titanic's port bow, that's a reference point that I can use in my periodic debates on whether or not Titanic turned north after her encounter with the berg. For those who might argue that Titanic pointed west (or even SW!) as she sank and that the observed light belonged to the Californian should reconsider their position.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com |
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 42
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 12:25 am: | |
Once again I'll come in knowing full well I'll be ignored, oh well.
In the 'Middle watch' thread I posted the evidence given by captain Lord to both enquiries to the effect that he and other officers had seen a large steamer that never vanished from view and seemed to stop about the same time as Titanic stopped and fire rockets about the same time as Titanic. I won't bother reproducing it all again as you can check the ET library. Who cares if there was a mystery ship or a rowing boat full of pork chops out there as well? because clearly the important crew from the Californian saw the Titanic and watched rockets coming from her. I also made the point that if these rockets were being fired by another ship then how come nobody on board Titanic saw them too?
So please check Capt. Lords testimonies and tell me if I am wrong, because it seems to me that he and his crew saw and kept in sight the Titanic and failed to respond to her plight.
Regards,
John. |
Matthew Lips
Member
Username: magiclips
Post Number: 239
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:19 am: | |
Good point, John. If there was another ship firing rockets in the vicinity, somebody aboard Titanic would have noticed - despite having more important things to do, like trying to stay alive.
The idea that nobody from the alleged Mystery Ship/s never said a word because they saw what happened to the Californian sounds lame to me, with all due respect. Some things you just cannot keep completely quiet for ever, and a front row seat to the sinking of Titanic would eventually have come out. It is impossible to believe otherwise.
Unless the mystery ship/s also sank that night, which seems highly improbable if not entirely impossible. (Clutching at straws, here).
Yet it remains extremely difficult to place Californian so far south of her stated position that she would be within five miles of Titanic. What we are left with is a mystery that would test the mighty Sherlock Holmes himself!
I look forward to the ongoing debate, if Phil doesn't get cheesed off and pull the plug again... |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 52
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:43 am: | |
Parks,
As a former mariner, you will be aware of the confusion with layman-speak when we use the word "heading."
Californian's *course* was practically due west, according to the testimony, and 'whistleblower' Groves had the last trick - wouldn't he say if she went south?
Anyway, the evidence is that she had to execute a sudden manoeuvre to avoid the ice barrier [running N-S, and let's say along the line 50 deg 10' so people can look at the graphic at the top of this thread.]
She starboarded, and ended up "heading" in the direction of what Captain Lord said was "about NE true" (US p.732.) Of course this "heading" meant she was stopped. Not moving. You see the problem with layman language - it is the direction in which her bows > were pointing.
It is not just Lord, the direction in which Californian is pointing is confirmed by other Cal witnesses, and then they are looking south over to starboard - where their green light is showing.
John Knight, I won't ignore you. I will correct you.
Nobody on the Californian says they saw a large steamer - except Gill, who wasn't on duty, and who sold a story for $500, a story that is like a string vest in its porousness, a demonstrably untrue story so that nobody uses Gill, and I am glad he came to a sticky end, which is a good story in itself.
THIS is what the Californian witnesses say about that steamer:
6749. Did you continue to watch the approaching, vessel? Lord: — Yes.
6750. Till what time? — Half-past 11. (Titanic collided at 11.40 her time) I was standing on deck watching it.
6751. All this time you were stopped? — We were stopped.
6752. What size steamer did she appear to you — can you give us some idea? — She was something like ourselves. (Californian 6,233 tons; Titanic 46,000 tons!)
Stone and Gibson said she was a small to medium steamer. Groves declined to give an estimate of size, but said he had "a lot of light." He later said this:
8484 What lights was she then showing?
Groves: Two masthead lights and a side light, and A FEW MINOR LIGHTS .
8485 Some deck lights? —A FEW deck lights, yes, that is what I could see.
Gibson said (7720) “a passenger boat is generally lit up from the water’s edge” when the one he could see wasn’t.
It is not true that it stopped the same time as the Titanic (C & T clocks were not the same), and not true that she did not vanish from view. She left under her own motive power as the testimony demonstrates.
And of course Cal saw Titanic's rockets - but rockets were not solely fired at sea for distress in 1912, but for a variety of reasons (I have much material on this, but this thread is about claims of 14 and 15 mile distance.)
It is a fact that in the regulation options for indicating distress at night in 1912, rockets came a poor third in the recommendations. Seems absurd, doesn't it? But this is in retrospect - they were still into flaming barrels of pitch and minute guns at the time.
But I am just killing time waiting for Paul Lee and Samuel Halpern and all these other supposed advocates of 15- and 14-mile Californians to show up.
I am about to destroy their arguments forever and I wish they would hurry.
Paul tells us to "learn physics," and he also says: "I know the evidence" (which is why it is strange that it keeps biting his argument in the bum), so I do wish he would show up.
I can't sit here polishing my lovely logic bomb forever. And there is SUCH a lovely drawing to go with it.
Next post - definitely. Suspend the distractions for a while to see if the boys can make it!
Senan |
Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400
Post Number: 193
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 12:04 pm: | |
I look forward to reading your post Senan. I have to admit I know bugger-all about the Californian Titanic (distance) mystery.
Sounds like you would be a good card player. The money is on the table waiting for someone to collect the pot. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 53
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 1:20 pm: | |
Hi Steve,
I am certainly looking for poker players to join me in a re-enactment of "The Gamblers' Indifference" at the BTS this year. Circa 11.40pm... you would be very welcome, although I know you are far away, like the Cal... much further than 15 miles...
Okay, I will detonate the inescapable argument -
The horizon of the LIFEBOATS !
You will remember that Titanic witnesses *continued to see the light of the Mystery Ship* even after they got down on the water.
This is what totally destroys the notion of that light being 15 miles away. Or 14 miles away. The Mystery Ship was NEAR.
EXAMPLES:
Quartermaster Walter Wynn (boat 9):
13336 While you were in the (life)boat did you see any light or lights? — I did.
13337. What did you see? — I saw a RED light first, and then the red light disappeared, and I saw a white one.
13338. What did you think the red light was? — I could not say; I put it down to a steamer.
The sidelight was BELOW the Californian’s bridge, at the officers’feet!
AB William Lucas (collapsible D):
1566. Did you see any light?
— Well, I did see a light, a faint side light of another ship.
1569. Where was it?—Off my port hand as I was in the (life)boat.
Do you mean it was a port light? Was it a red or a green light? — A RED light - a side light.
Night watchman James Johnson (boat 2):
3502. Then you had not gone very far towards the light? — A mile and a half. I am certain we
pulled that.
3503. Did this light seem to get fainter or did it disappear suddenly? — When we got away it
disappeared altogether.
3504. What coloured light was it? — I think it was red. I think there were two lights, in fact, a red and a white light.
3505. (Lord Mersey) Are you sure? — I can discern any sort of colour, racing, a mile and
a quarter off, and I think I could see a red light.
3506. Are you sure? — I am certain.
Bathroom steward Charles Donald Mackay (boat 11)
10801. Were you within sight when the ship went down? — We watched all proceedings.
10802. Did you see a light while you were in the (life)boat? — A supposed light do you mean?
10803. Well, I do not know whether it was a supposed light or not. Did you see what you
thought was a light? — Yes, we thought there was a ship’s stern light.
10804. Was it a white light or a coloured light? — It was a reddish light.
10805. And you thought it was the stern light of a ship? — Yes.
(…)
10809. And did you row towards that light? — For a matter of about two hours as hard as we
could row.
Mrs Lucien P. Smith: (boat 6)
“We reached the water all right. There was a small light on the horizon that we were told to row towards.”
John Poingdestre (boat 12)
3088. (You saw a light from your lifeboat) Low down, near the horizon? — Yes.
3089. What distance did you judge it to be? — A matter of four or five miles.
That’s enough examples – more are available!
Now Here is a picture of a man standing on the thwart of a lifeboat. He is wearing a university scarf, but that’s because I copied the picture “almost precisely” from a drawing by Peter Padfield – and yes, I’m having a little joke now.
Call him Paul Lee, or Reg Lee, it doesn't matter.
The height of the Titanic lifeboat thwart was less than two feet. (Most chair sears are only 18 inches high.) But let’s call it two feet.
Let’s also say that the man standing on the thwart is the tallest man in the world at the time, at a strapping seven and a half feet tall.
Lop off six inches to get 7ft as the height of his eye. Plus two feet for the thwart height, gives nine feet off the water.
Now we’ll find the lifeboat horizon.
It’s 1.17 times the square root of the height of observer’s eye (9ft). Square root is 3.
Three times 1.17 is 3.51 nautical miles.
The lifeboat horizon for the world’s tallest man is a maximum of 3.51 miles
(And if he is sitting down, of course, it will be half that!)
Paul naturally wants the ship that the escapees can see from the lifeboats to be the Californian.
3.5 plus 7.8 (the Californian’s visible horizon, as agreed by Samuel Halpern and I) amounts, as you can now see, to just 11.3 miles. For the tallest man in the world, standing on a thwart!
Therefore someone in a Titanic lifeboat, even the tallest man in the world, standing on a thwart,
will NOT see the Californian or any other light at a distance of 14 or 15 miles – as is being argued.
But people were sensible enough not to stand up unsteadily as their boat pursued the light.
And people were of less than today’s average height in 1912. Crewmen were small, in the main.
And we know Boxhall and Poingdestre and others witnessed what they believed to be a STERN light on the Mystery Ship. A stern light being *far lower down* than the Californian’s flying bridge.
This spells the end and painful death of the 15 mile argument.
It proves scientifically, using Paul Lee's approach, that Paul Lee and Samuel Halpern are WRONG, and that the Titanic witnesses have been RIGHT all along.
There are, of course, two other problems that occur if the fiction is momentarily maintained that the Titanic lifeboats could still see the light of a ship that was fifteen miles away.
Problem 1:
Mount Temple's Captain, if one believes her, says she arrived at the SOS position at 4.30am.
That is 13.5 nautical miles from the wreck site - well within your 15-mile circle.
Therefore some of the Titanic lifeboats should have seen the Mount Temple in the daylight at that time and begun hauling towards her. Funny thing - no mention of that in the evidence.
Problem 2:
If you can see 15 miles in a lifeboat (which you can't - it's like sitting on a box in the flattest field in the flattest part of Iowa and expecting to see a barn fifteen miles away), then you will be able to see the Carpathia when she is 15 miles away.
Which means that the lifeboats should have seen Rostron's vessel at 3am - just 40 minutes after the sinking!
Rostron says (US Inq): "I stopped my engines at 4 o'clock, and I was then close to the first boat." They were all within four miles when day got up, he says. "At 4:10 I got the first boat alongside."
See the problems? Nothing to do with algebra on the back of an envelope.
Even "thickos" can grasp it, to use one of my opponents' word.
There are claimants here who suggest the Californian is visible 14 or 15 miles away!
But the argument they advance cannot be sustained.
Game, set and match. |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1668
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 4:21 pm: | |
Senan,
Your point is well taken and wouldn't have had to have been made if I had done my homework before posting.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com |
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 2132
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 8:02 pm: | |
Just to claim priority, I'll just say that Paul and Sam are indeed wrong. Californian was not 14-15 miles away. The distance was actually about 11-12 miles. I can demonstrate how this position was reached and I have a coherent account of the events of 14/15 April.
All will be revealed in a month or two. |
Philip Hind
Moderator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 12-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:22 pm: | |
All will be revealed in a month or two.
Oh golly, you mean I have to keep this thread open another two months. I'm not sure my head can stand it. |
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 1981
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 10:19 pm: | |
Well, I won't keep you waiting for my theory on how the lifeboat crews were able to keep an eye on the mystery ship. Rumour has it they could even see the Statue of Lee-bertee (vair-ry small, of course).
 |
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 43
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:27 am: | |
Hi all me again. Thanks for correcting my statement about a 'large' steamer and your acknowledgment that the Titanic's rockets were seen onboard the Californian. Please forgive me everyone, but I must post part of Lords testimony here that does it make it clear in my opinion that he saw the Titanic, that she remained in view, that other officers on the Californian saw the Titanic and that they saw her fire several rockets. I know that lord said the ship he saw could not have been Titanic but, and I don't want to sound nasty here, he would wouldn't he? he would want that ship not to be her but clearly she was unless another was firing rockets that night. Capt. Lords testimony is below.
------------------------------------------------
Mr. LORD. When I came off the bridge, at half past 10, I pointed out to the officer that I thought I saw a light coming along, and it was a most peculiar light, and we had been making mistakes all along with the stars, thinking they were signals. We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm. He said he thought it was a star, and I did not say anything more. I went down below. I was talking with the engineer about keeping the steam ready, and we saw these signals coming along, and I said "There is a steamer passing. Let us go to the wireless and see what the news is." But on our way down I met the operator coming, and I said, "Do you know anything?" He said, "The Titanic."
So, then, I gave him instructions to let the Titanic know. I said, "This is not the Titanic; there is no doubt about it." She came and lay at half past 11, alongside of us until, I suppose, a quarter past, within 4 miles of us. We could see everything on her quite distinctly, see her lights. We signaled her, at half past 11, with the Morse lamp. She did not take the slightest notice of it. That was between half past 11 and 20 minutes to 12. We signaled her again at 10 minutes past 12, half past 12, a quarter to 1 o'clock. We have a very powerful Morse lamp. I suppose you can see that about 10 miles, and she was about 4 miles off, and she did not take the slightest notice of it. When the second officer came on the bridge, at 12 o'clock ,or 10 minutes past 12, I told him to watch that steamer, which was stopped, and I pointed out the ice to him; told him we were surrounded by ice; to watch the steamer that she did not get any closer to her. At 20 minutes to 1 I whistled up the speaking tube and asked him if she was getting any nearer. He said, "No; she is not taking any notice of us." So, I said "I will go and lie down a bit." At a quarter past he said, "I think she has fired a rocket." He said, "She did not answer the Morse lamp and she has commenced to go away from us." I said, "Call her up and let me know at once what her name is. So, he put the whistle back, and, apparently, he was calling. I could hear him ticking over my head. Then l went to sleep.
Senator SMITH. You heard nothing more about it?
Mr. LORD. Nothing more until about something between then and half past 4, I have a faint recollection of the apprentice opening the room door; opening it and shutting it. I said "What is it?" He did not answer and I went to sleep again. I believe the boy came down to deliver me the message that this steamer had steamed away from us to the southwest, showing several of these flashes or white rockets; steamed away to the southwest.
----------------------------------------------
Regards to all and back to the bunker.
John. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 484
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 1:49 am: | |
Hi folks:
Not much time to do justice here, but I need to clarify a few things. The average distance I came up with in my unpublished analysis was 12 miles, which is similar to what Dave Gittins said he obtained. I think we differ on direction, but our distances are about the same.
Now a few things that should be considered:
1. The Californian stopped DR from Capt. Lord was 42° N, 50° 07'W.
2. The Titanic wreck site is located at 41° 43.5'N, 49° 56.8'W. The center of the boiler field.
3. The bearing to the mystery ship seen from the Californian was SSE magnetic. Both 2/O Stone and 3/O Groves reported this, so we have two officers confirming the same line of bearing.
4. Capt. Lord gave the compass correction (variation plus deviation) as 22 degrees west. This makes the bearing line to the mystery ship SE true.
5. The socket signals fired from the Titanic were seen above the Californian mystery ship making both Gibson and Stone to believe they came from the mystery ship. Therefore Californian's mystery ship was on the same line of bearing to the Titanic as seen from the Californian. That line ran NW-SE true.
6. Both the Californian and the Titanic were stopped. The Californian had stopped at 10:21 PM Californian time, and the Titanic was certainly stopped by 12:00 AM Titanic time. In other words the relative positions of these two ships would not change. However, they both were free to drift with the current.
7. If we draw a line from the wreck site pointing NW true (315°), then the Californian had to be on the line of bearing at the time the Titanic founded at 2:20 AM Titanic time (about 2:10 AM Californian time).
8. As can be seen from the attached chart, the Californian could not have been at her stopped DR at the time Titanic founded because that position is way off the line of bearing. The DR stopping point of the Californian is a good 10 miles from line of bearing at its closest point.
10. If the Californian did not drift down from her stopped DR with current, then she had to be well west of where Capt. Lord had put her, around longitude 50° 26'W, or 14 miles further west than his reported stopping point. To reach that point, the Californian would have had to make 13 knots over ground since their noon position reported as 42° 05'N, 47° 25'W. Capt. Lord said in the inquiries that he was doing about 11 knots, and an observation he said was taken at 5:30 PM showed they made 64 miles in 5 1/2 hours (Affidavit 25 June 1959).
More installments to come, but not now.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 2133
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 5:34 am: | |
Don't worry Phil, it won't be on this thread. |
Steve Hall
Member
Username: ss400
Post Number: 194
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:26 am: | |
Just a quick few questions - could light be reflected off icebergs ?
How far away could the blowning off of steam by Titanic be heard on a calm night ?
My gut feeling from reading through this thread is that it was not the Californian seen from Titanic.
I read this thread with much interest. |
John Flood
Member
Username: j_flood
Post Number: 46
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 3:48 pm: | |
A fascinating thread!
Just a note on something Senan mentioned earlier. He mentioned that the mystery ship was heading towards Titanic, basically going the wrong way, on the one way westbound track, before turning away. I think this is important. Why would a ship be steaming in the 'wrong' direction?
Is it possible that the mystery ship had a wireless set, picked up the distress signal and was on the way to help. On seeing close up the enormity of what was happening they decided to turn away instead?
Any thoughts?
John. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11375
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 5:45 am: | |
>>could light be reflected off icebergs ? <<
Yes. Perhaps not as much as some might think but enough that decent lookouts could spot the thing with the naked eye at a good distance if they're paying attention.
>>Why would a ship be steaming in the 'wrong' direction? <<
Just a purely objective aside from all of this, the reason a ship might be going in the "wrong direction" would probably be the ice itself. It was dense enough to stop the Californian until daybreak, stop the Mount Temple dead in her tracks, and it was thick enough to sink the largest ship in the world. If you were a freighter captain and saw a seemingly inpenetrable icefield in front of you, and knowing the harm it could do, would you be tempted to have a go at it?
I wouldn't. (I want to live long enough to collect my pension!)
Of course, this doesn't mean that any of the players saw what they *thought* they saw or that any of them were telling the diety's honest truth about *what* they saw, but I'll leave that debate to the rest of you. You seem to have that ground covered.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon |
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Username: oceanic3
Post Number: 139
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 12:16 pm: | |
Can anyone tell me where the factor 1.17 comes from in the horizon calculation? The distance to the horizon on a sphere is
sqr(2*h*R)
where h is the height of the eye and R is the radius of the Earth. Take R to be 6371km (the volumetric average radius of the Earth). Converting the numbers into feet and miles gives
d = 1.064 * sqr(Hf) nautical miles
or
d = 1.225 * sqr(Hf) statute miles
where Hf is the height of the eye in feet.
I don't think I've messed up the numbers, so where does 1.17 come from?
BTW Senan, this changes your limit on the distance of the lifeboats' mystery ship to 10.3 nautical miles.
Cheers
Paul |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 485
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 3:02 pm: | |
Paul W. Your are absolutely correct in deriving your equation for distance to the horizon. If the earth did not have an atmosphere that would be the result you would get. However, there is refraction that brings objects just beyond the geometric horizon up to the visual horizon. The equation D = 1.17 sqr(h) takes average refraction into account. By the way, high pressure systems and very cold air, the type that produce very clear skys, have higher than average air densities, thus slightly increasing the refraction coefficient and extending the distance slightly above the average. The equation is not meant to be precise, but to give a good estimate of visual range. Given the reported conditions of the night of April 14/15, the equation above, which comes from Bowditch, should give conservative results.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Username: oceanic3
Post Number: 140
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 11:22 pm: | |
Thanks for the clarification Sam.
Cheers
Paul |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 55
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 6:43 pm: | |
Samuel,
There are so many problems with your above illustrated line of reasoning that I simply reject it rather than post long-winded rebuttals.
People should read, read and re-read the evidence, particularly the Titanic evidence.
Your claiming to know the difference between Titanic and Californian times (in one of your earlier posts) tells me volumes.
Paper never refuses ink. Message boards will receive any outpouring. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 495
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 4:26 am: | |
Hi Senan. I hope all is well with you. Looking again at my post above I noticed a minor error in point number 1. It should have read: "The Californian stopped DR from Capt. Lord was 42° 05'N, 50° 07'W." The position is however correct as marked on the chart that I showed.
You mentioned that there may be more problems with what I said in my post. I would like to know what they would be. If I put down information that is incorrect, then please let me know what you think should be corrected. On the chart I showed 4 positions: the wreck site, the Californian stopped position according to Capt. Lord, the Boxhall CQD location, and the 6:30 PM Californian location transmitted to the Antillian in an ice message sent at 7:30 PM on the 14th. Those are all well known facts and I would think are not controversial.
The SSE magnetic bearing to Californian's mystery ship I would also think would not be controversial. We have 2/O Stone, the Apprentice Gibson, 3/O Groves, and also Capt. Lord all saying the same thing as to the bearing of the mystery steamer. (BOT 6779 Lord) – “I heard what it was at midnight - S.S.E. from us by compass.”
To get to a true bearing you have to correct for compass variation and deviation. (BOT 6782 – Lord) “The variation that day at noon was 24 3/4. She was about 24 when we were stopped; the deviation would be about 2E, making an error of 22W.” Now 22 degrees is just about 2 points. To get to true you have to subtract this value from the magnetic bearing. Subtracting 2 points from SSE makes the true bearing SE. And this is the line I show going to the wreck site. For any ship located on that line, the wrecksite would bear SE true or SSE magnetic.
Now the next point you may argue with if you believe the rockets seen by Stone and Gibson did NOT come the Titanic. But if they did, then he Californian had to be on that line at the time the Titanic foundered. Why do I say that? The answer to that is a simple one. If the Californian mystery ship was SE true from the Californian, as her officers and Capt. Lord said she was, and if the rockets that appeared above that mystery ship as noted by 2/O Stone and Gibson came from the Titanic, then the Titanic had to be on that line of bearing SE true from the Californian. And since neither the Californian nor the Titanic were moving during those hours except for the local area current, then at the time the Titanic foundered over the position of the wrecksite, the Californian had to be located exactly NE true of her. No matter how you slice it, the Californian had to drift down to that line of bearing shown on the chart from wherever she was at 10:21 PM when she stopped for the night. The only question is where on that bearing line do we put her. Once that can be derived, then the distance between the Titanic and the Californian could be determined.
So now comes my 2nd installment. To the chart I now add another position report. That report comes directly from Capt. Lord. From his 1959 affidavit, “At about 9:10 AM the Carpathia set course for NY…. About 11:20 AM I abandoned the search and proceeded due west (true) through the ice, clearing same about 11:50 AM. The Mount Temple was then in sight a considerable distance to the SW of us heading to the westward. The noon position was 41° 33’N 50° 09’W…From this position I placed the wreckage in position 41° 33’N 50° 01’W…” The latter position also given at the British Inquiry (7039), “The position where I left the wreckage was 41º 33' N., 50° 1' W.”
What does this all mean? The Titanic foundered in latitude 41° 43.5’N yet the wreckage was in latitude 41° 33’N at 11:20 AM on the 15th. And the latitude of the wreckage was probably accurate since it was based on a noon observation of the sun taken by all of Californian’s officers. The answer to this question is also the answer to the question of how did the Californian end up on that line of bearing NE-SE true from the wrecksite when the Titanic foundered.
The situation is shown below.
By the way, I included a compass rose to the chart. And one more thing. The time difference between Californian and the Titanic was actually 11 minutes. This is based on their respective noon longitudes on April 14th including taking into account the equation of time for that date. And Senan, the British Inquiry equated Titanic time with Californian time, 1:50 ahead of NY. They were wrong. The American Inquiry had it at 1:33 ahead of NY, and they were wrong. The Limitation of Liability Hearings in NY in 1915 had it at 1:39 ahead of NY, and they were wrong. But all that is another story for another time which I will not get into here.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 496
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:47 pm: | |
Oh! I may not have stated the question too clearly. How did the wreckage wind up about 11 miles south of the wrecksite about 9 hours after the breakup of the Titanic? Of course the answer to that question is the local current. And just looking at the chart it is quite obvious that the same current set and drift would cause the Californian to drift down to that line of bearing that ran from NW to SE true (NNW to SSE magnetic) as shown on the chart. And this current was acting on the Californian way before she came to a stop at 10:21 PM on the night of the 14th.
Once we place the Californian on that line, then we can consider the positions of the two mystery ships in question. And let's not forget that the Mount Temple and Carpathia showed up on the seen before daybreak. More to come.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W. |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 56
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 1:27 pm: | |
I suggest Samuel that you stop trying to shove a round peg into a square hole.
Your latest theory is ludicrous because you are drawing a line through an ICEFIELD (forgotten that?) and putting the Californian on the west side, not on the east, where she stopped.
The presence of that icefield, its dimensions and location, is extremely well attested, except you don't know the testimony.
Secondly, you are using a Californian stop position (10.21pm AST) and a Titanic wreck position (post 2.20am) to illustrate your latest outpouring.
Of course a sensible consideration would have to factor in the Californian drift and the Titanic drift of two hours 40 minutes, but you haven't bothered with any of that in your deeply flawed "analysis."
You love to place the Californian in different positions, but they tried moving the Californian to the west in 1912, and it doesn't wash.
Most unlikely of all is the nonsense that the Titanic must be heading (pointing) to the North.
Of course she must be to see the STOPPED Californian off the port bow - but all other points of the compass favour the Californian.
Along with all the testimony - which is why you never quote any testimony of people who were there in 1912.
But we know that you think Titanic witnesses in 1912 are "not infallible."
Look back at your droring... Californian stopped on the eastern edge of the icefield and TOLD the Titanic about it before the impact.
So your line is a joke. |
Paul Rogers
Member
Username: progers
Post Number: 459
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 4:53 pm: | |
Senan,
Whilst I have no doubt that you have valid points to make, may I please ask: why do you have to be so darn rude about it? What do you hope to achieve by adopting such an abrasive manner and invective? From my perspective at least, it does you and your argument no favours.
It's a shame because this is spoiling an otherwise fascinating debate.
It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 987
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 5:37 pm: | |
Paul:
Senan being rude is his normal mode.
Senan, you said:
Most unlikely of all is the nonsense that the Titanic must be heading (pointing) to the North.
Prove your point. It is a fact that the wreck is pointing north on the sea floor.
Bill |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 58
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:20 pm: | |
Bill Wormstedt -
Being rude is one thing. Being ill-informed and persisting in pseudo-science is another.
Churchill said: "One is not entitled to one's opinion. One is entitled to an informed opinion."
And Samuel is spectacularly ill-informed. There was an icefield there!
FYI, Bill, the prow is actually pointing more to NE than to N.
Of course the stern is turned around and pointing in the exact opposite direction, like this:
^
n
Where ^ represents the bows and "n" the stern. So which half properly represents the ship, Bill?
Secondly, even very large objects plane away as they sink through water. Air leaving a sinking object will influence how it travels in sea water.
This is well known. There are probably a lot of formulae that could speculated upon.
Thirdly, currents operate in deep sea water. And not just surface currents, but pellagic currents and all sorts of stratified influences.
I don't claim to know how these affect sinking objects, but they are there - just as wind will affect a falling object.
Fourthly, even if a prow went down straight and was pointing north, what would this tell us?
It would tell us that that is the way the prow was facing at 2.20am when the ship sank (excluding all planing, air, current and other considerations).
The Mystery Ship was seen circa 12.35am - or at least very early in the night.
People who see themselves as "Anti-Lordites" and have no need to think deeply about anything are fond of imagining that the Californian swung about *rapidly* in the surface current (to present the red light that the Titanic undoubtedly saw early in the night.)
Are you saying that no current was operating on the Titanic, Bill?
You like having the Californian close to the Titanic don't you? So no current?
If, as you think, the prow is pointing north now, and sank in a straight line, then that means that the prow was pointing *anywhere BUT North* when the Mystery Ship was seen.
Is it rude to point this out?
Should we not mention the icefield to Sam?
Paul - cruel realities are what they are, realities, no matter how expressed. Maybe I don't suffer fools gladly, but the supreme foolishness is to judge arguments by whether you like the person out of whose mouths they come.
I prefer to rely on the testimony of the men who were there on the Titanic on April 14/15, 1912. |
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1538
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:22 pm: | |
Rude...crude...Californian is a topic that has always led to bare knuckles arguments. Let the literary fists fly. We may learn something brought to light by the passion of the combatants that would never be uncovered in more civilized debate. May I hold someone's coat?
-- David G. Brown |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 59
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:47 pm: | |
Hi David,
While you are holding my coat, please prove your case that my theory on the JFK shooting is wrong!
You have never managed to post a single rebuttal of my theory that the shooting was carried out by the President's spouse, Mrs Kennedy.
After all, she had motive (she had found out!), she had means (all those secret service agents in the car with easily accessible firearms) and she had opportunity.
It all fits. The "Lone Gunwoman" theory.
Your failure to patiently address every single one of my assertions simply demonstrates that your contrary position must be unreliable in the extreme!
It is not as if you haven't anything better to do that hold coats!
(Irony! What's that?) |
Paul Rogers
Member
Username: progers
Post Number: 460
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:21 pm: | |
Senan said: "Maybe I don't suffer fools gladly, but the supreme foolishness is to judge arguments by whether you like the person out of whose mouths they come."
I originally said: "From my perspective at least, it does you and your argument no favours." You will note that I was not commenting on whether or not I liked you. However, in terms of the strength of your argument (and no doubt due to my supreme foolishness) when I was reading your post I was also remembering Eric Hoffer's view when he stated: "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
David Brown said: "Let the literary fists fly. We may learn something brought to light by the passion of the combatants that would never be uncovered in more civilized debate. May I hold someone's coat?"
Should you enjoy the heat of combat so much, might I suggest that I hold your coat? I have seen too much damage done on this Board to people I like and admire because of this sort of thoughtless attitude. Some are still with us but many have retired hurt, and we are much the poorer for their departure. Frankly, if one can only learn by dispensing with civilised debate then there is no hope for any of us.
It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black. |
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 990
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:29 pm: | |
Senan,
I am well aware of the pointing of the bow - in fact it's more NNE than NE, according to what I've read.
And the current in the area proves nothing. Just as the testimony of the witnesses who said the Titanic was pointed in various directions proves nothing. But - at least SOME of them had the right answer!
>I prefer to rely on the testimony of the men who were there on the Titanic on April 14/15, 1912.
Maybe you need to pay more attention to the men who were on the Californian.
Bill |
Senan Molony
Member
Username: senan_molony
Post Number: 60
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:36 pm: | |
Paul,
I will be judged on the strength of otherwise of my body of work, including 29 free Research Articles here, and a couple of maritime books.
You may think I am a "weak man imitating strength" and I might think you are the nicest guy in the world, and it just might be that we are both wrong.
People who defy the Titanic evidence about the Titanic's Mystery Ship are people who would rather live in obscurantist denial that admit they have been wrong for many years.
I am not comparing myself to Galileo here, but when the Inquisition insisted to him that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that this orb stays still, that "weak man" actually shouted (pretty rudely):
"E piu se muove!"
Which translates as "Still it moves!"
I sometimes think that Galileo's outburst could be applied to those Flat Earthers who persist in the face of ALL the evidence in believing that the Californian is the Titanic's Mystery Ship.
Still it moves! - the Mystery Ship was moving.
The Californian stayed still.
Read Boxhall's evidence, posted in the last thread.
Another quote to finish, this from a man much derided as weak in his early Presidency -
He said: "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they DID..."
Message boards are extremely bad places for learning anything at all.
Tell me why Jackie didn't kill JFK??? |
|
|
|
US $56.88 5 Bids
