Titanic forum and community
Results 1 to 91 of 91

The Jack PhillipsHarold Bride picture

This discussion on "The Jack PhillipsHarold Bride picture" is in the John George Phillips Wireless Operator section; http://www.titanicnorden.com/downloa...e/telegraf.jpg In this famous "Titanic wireless operators" picture, Jack Phillips and a young man could ...

      
   
  1. #1
    Hydie Cheung
    Guest
    http://www.titanicnorden.com/downloa...e/telegraf.jpg

    In this famous "Titanic wireless operators" picture, Jack Phillips and a young man could be seen on a ship. Some say that the young man on the right is Harold Bride while some people disagree. So.. what do you think?

    - Hydie

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    393
    The general consensus is that the man on the right is not Harold Bride. The man on the left is Jack (Father Francis Browne was the one who took this photo I believe...at least, it was in his collection, and he clearly indicates that the man on the left is Phillips, taken while Jack served on the Adriatic). Phillips and Bride did not serve on any prior ships together before Titanic.




  3. #3
    Hydie Cheung
    Guest
    Thanks for reminding, Kirtina! I have just checked out a book called The Last Days of TITANIC: Photographs and mementos of the tragic maiden voyage by Dr. Robert D. Ballard from the library yesterday. The book has shown a collection of Father Browne's pictures. Just saw the picture above and the description you told me. Thank you!

    - Hydie

  4. #4
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    Sure does look like Harold Bride to me. If you notice it appears to be a bit bright that day and phillips looks a little different than his famous portrait as does Harold Bride looks to his.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Doesn't particularly look like Bride to me, even factoring in the weather conditions. As has been pointed out, not only does Father Browne's caption mitigate against it being Bride, but also the identification of the ship (the two men did not serve together on the Adriatic) and Bride's own testimony stating that he had not met Philips before they joined the Titanic. That's powerful evidence against it being Bride. Only 'pro' evidence thus far produced has been a percieved physical resemblance.

  6. #6
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    Well Inger ...you see the one thing that has me a believer is that Harold Bride has distinct lips as I have see in his famous photo and some VHS tapes on the story and aftermath following the incident that I have rented from the many libraries located in California and in the Tennessee areas. I wasn't talking weather as much as I was noticing the two squinting from the sun obviously. It seems that the one photo of him that is all over the web sites is the only one out there other than just a few that shows up as here and there such as this one. If anyone knows of a site that has more photo's of Harold Bride as a young man and any in his later years please let me know. Thanks.
    Lucky

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,280
    [indent]
    quote:

    Only 'pro' evidence thus far produced has been a percieved physical resemblance.
    Inger, you left out 'wishful thinking' based on over romanticised notions of the Bride / Phillips Great Mateship (as perpertuated in some circles).

    Seriously though, this is another Titanic hydra - mythological and hard to kill even in the face of fact. I would think Father Browne knew on which ship he took the photo (and of whom). Here's the caption he wrote for that photo:
    [indent]
    quote:

    Mr Jack Phillips (on left), who was also lost on the Titanic, taken shortly before his transfer from the "Adriatic".

    (From p 42, Father Browne's Titanic Album, Wolfhound, 1997.)
    While he doesn't identify the other Marconi operator, the facsimile album places the 'blurred' photo of Harold Bride at work in Titanic's radio room on the same page, and Harold Bride is identified as being in that photo. Had Harold been the other man in the Adriatic photo, why wouldn't've Father Browne identified him?

    However, even allowing for Father Browne muddling up his photographs, Bride didn't serve on Adriatic. He had been a Marconi operator since July 1911, serving on Haverford, Lusitania, Lanfranc (La France?) and Anselm. Further, we have Bride's testimony about not previously knowing Phillips, in his own words, at the US Senate enquiry:

    [indent]
    quote:

    Senator SMITH. Were you acquainted with any of the officers or the crew of the Titanic when you entered service on that boat?

    Mr. BRIDE. No, sir,

    Senator SMITH. Had you sailed with any of them before?

    Mr. BRIDE. No, sir.

    Senator SMITH. Were you acquainted with Mr. Phillips?

    Mr. BRIDE. Not until I saw him in Belfast.

    Senator SMITH. Was he in Belfast?

    Mr. BRIDE. Yes, sir.

    Senator SMITH. Once or oftener?

    Mr. BRIDE. I went up to Belfast to join the Titanic.

    Senator SMITH. Did you join her in Belfast?

    Mr. BRIDE. Yes, sir.

    (Testimony of Harold Bride, American Inquiry, Day 2, 20 April 1912, http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/AmInq02Bride01.html)
    I've included the direct link so the full testimony can be read in context, including Bride's account of ships he'd previously served on.

    Lucky, I'm not sure where you'd find more photos of Harold Bride online. There's an unusual one (albeit a poor reproduction) on Inger and Jemma's site (http://www.nautical-papers.com/onwatch/) but having just looked at it I don't see that it helps regarding physical resemblance. Unlike you, I don't think the man in the Adriatic picture looks at all like the man pictured at the US Senate enquiry. However, you might like to check out Glen Dunstan's radio page, as he's got a reasonable section on Bride: http://www.hf.ro/

    Happy hunting,
    Fiona

  8. #8
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    I had dinner with Harold Bride's nephew, Mr. George Sinclair, just a couple of weeks ago and we discussed, among other things, this very picture. The Bride family knows that this picture does not portray Harold Bride.

    In addition, I had a peek at some unpublished photos of Bride, some in his Marconi Co. uniform, cap and all. I could see for myself that the person in the Adriatic picture does not really resemble Bride at that time in his life.

    For those desiring to see the Bride family pictures, Mr. Sinclair will be publishing them in a work on Bride's life in the future.

    Parks

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Cheers for putting those direct cites up, Fi! I agree with you that this seems to be another bit of romantic mythologising re. Bride and Philips that has taken root on the net. IMHO, people see Bride in that photo because they want to see Bride. It's not the first bit of spurious i.d.ing circulating around based on a perceived physical resemblance - the photos purporting to be the Titanic's officers circulating that in actual fact show the Olympic's officers is another example.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Hallo Parks! I see our posts crossed. I meant to ask you if this particular photo came up during the dinner. Am glad you've helped settle this furphy once and for all...or at least, I hope you've settled it...these things have a habit of popping up again and again...

  11. #11
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    Ing,

    Yes, that's why the subject came up in conversation. It's an interesting example of what the family of a famous person has to deal with. The Bride family, as you and Jemma know, have been extremely private where Harold is concerned, the result of which has had the unintended consequence of allowing some myths to grow unchecked around their relative. Mr. Sinclair is the first family member to have a desire to break the silence and share what the family has always known, if for no other reason other than to set the record straight. He has nothing sensational, mind you, that will alter the known history of the disaster, but the family's perspective on Bride's life will absolutely stun historians who have an interest in the man. For instance, Bride was rescued wearing his Marconi Co. uniform. He carried his personal effects in the uniform pockets. The uniform, along with his personal effects, came home with Harold. I find that to be utterly fascinating, although the average person might consider this to be minutiae.

    Parks

  12. #12
    Allison Lane
    Guest
    Parks, you've got me really excited with mention of this forthcoming book on Bride. Do you have any more details on the publishing date, or the availability (i.e., could I get it here in the U.S.)?


    -Allison L.

  13. #13
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    Allison,

    No, I don't. Mr. Sinclair has a publisher and has drawn his material together but the final format of the book has yet to be determined. I am in the same position with my planned book on the Marconi apparatus and telegraphy procedure. The reason for our dinner was to discuss the possibility of combining our efforts into one book. If this happens, Mr. Sinclair will abandon his original concept and I will abandon mine in favour of the new project. The details of this collaboration will be worked out over the coming months, so I can't add any more at this time.

    Mr. Sinclair's publisher is in the U.S.; in fact, it proved to be a happy coincidence that I live only a few miles from it.

    Parks

  14. #14
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    The question is asked in the beginning post of what I think. I think the man in the picture is indeed Harold Bride because to me it looks like him...point blank. Not because I want it to be him as stated in the post above as I have nothing to gain by just wanting it to be him just for the sake of it. Unless you were there when the photo was taken it is just left to individual's opinion about it and that also goes for the initial meeting and/or if the two actually posed for the photo.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    If we leave the writing of history to 'individual opinion', and that opinion is based on subjective interpretation regarding our sources as opposed to where the weight of evidence lies, the study of history would be a shambles. It would be possible, for example to dismiss all the evidence regarding the Olympic photos of the Titanic's officers because of a subjective personal view on a supposed physical resemblance. Our assessment of historical sources, and our understanding of historical 'fact', is based upon where the weight of evidence lies and how we interpret it. In this instance, the material we have decidedly against this being Harold Bride. You have contemporary sources (the Browne caption, the fact the ship is the Adriatic and these men never served on it together, and Bride's own testimony re when he met Philips) and also contemporary comment from the family, who have access to a wider range of photographs.

    You state it is 'left to the individual's opinion' about when the initial meeting took place. Do you have any evidence that contravenes Bride's own statement as to when that first meeting took place? Do you have any suggestions as to why you believe Bride lied under oath? Beyond a perceived physical similarity between him and this man in the photo - a highly subjective interpretation that contradicts the extant data?

    I'd love to see your knowledge and expertise combined with the family's wealth of material, Parks - the result could be a very fruitful collaboration indeed. Btw - am dropping you an email re a bit of information I received about Bride from another source...want to see if you can confirm it, which in turn would help confirm the legitmacy of this source. It's very specific, and is a pretty straight yes/no answer. I can well understand why the family would like to set the record straight regarding Bride...rumours have been circulating for so long now (the whole recluse/disappearance thing, for exampe) and seem to have exploded with the advent of the internet and both the Movie and Musical.



  16. #16
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    Inger, With all due respect....There are just some things that no one will ever really know for sure. Opinion is just that and it is based only on lack of evidence and is therefore only speculation.

  17. #17
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    P.S. I am not a member of a debate team and am old enough to come to my own conclusions unless evidence is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

  18. #18
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    Lucky,

    Your opinion runs counter to that of Bride's own family, including Harold's own sister. If you're comfortable with that, then good luck to you.

    Parks

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Sorry Lucky - an opinion based on flimsy or flawed evidence, as opposed to one based on more substantive material, is not worth the ink it's penned with or the bandwith it takes up. The view that this is not Bride is not based on 'lack of evidence' - it is based on evidence - the captioning by Brown, and a categoric statement by Bride himself. Unless, as I say, you think he lied under oath, for no discernable motive you have produced, and with no evidence to back up this insinuation that he lied? This particular furphy has unfortunately gained widespread currency, so needs to be tackled. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But not all opinions are equal. I prefer to draw my conclusions based on where the bulk of the historical evidence lies - particularly when it is contradicted by nothing more than a subjective interpretation of a visual source that is belied by other sources.

  20. #20
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    "Lucky,"

    You've been critical of the reasons given by those who think that the person in the Adriatic photo is not Bride. Would you care to share the reason(s) why you so passionately believe he is?

    Would this have anything to do with Lucy Bride?

    Parks

  21. #21
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    Well, No one has any real evidence and it seems to be here say. I can't say one way or the other for sure and that it my point. Brown said...family members say....I think it looks like Harold Bride in the picture and that is all I'm going to say on the subject. I wasn't there at the time the photo was taken and neither were you or anyone else for that matter. We all know that contradictory points are in order for these post as everyone has some info or thoughts that differ from other people that post here. That is why we give our input. I respect others opinion as I expect others to respect mine as well. We are all entitled to different views and no one should attack an individual for posting theirs. I say it again and for the last time.."It looks like Harold Bride in the photo to me". Enough Said. Have a great day! Peace!

  22. #22
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    P.S. As a matter of fact this whole incident has had twist and turns with a lot of unanswered questions that may never be answered. Some say this and some say that. Who really knows why the disaster happened the way it did and who or what could have prevented it. Bits and pieces of fact or fiction remains around every turn that we can only try to bring together to make some kind of sense from the turn of events that took place. We find out every day something interesting has unfolded about the Titanic. My ears and eyes have always been opened to the reality of it all but I have my own mind to think things through according to facts that are presented. One can tell a story to a room full of spectators and my guess is that there will be many different views on the subject or in this case ... a picture of what is to be believed or not believed to be Harold Bride himself.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Sigh -

    'No one has any real evidence'?

    Browne took the photo. His statement counts as evidence.

    Bride is the one purportedly IN the photo. He says he never met Philips before they joined the Titanic. That counts as evidence as well.

    The Bride family knew him better than anyone, and have access to more photographic reference material than the public. I'd take their views into consideration in the 'expert witness' category!

    As opposed to that, we have a viewpoint based on nothing more than subjective personal opinion that it looks like Bride, and a suggestion that he lied under oath about having met Philips - for no given motive, or reason. This flies in the face of what is, according to historical methodology, evidence.

    To counter an opinion with historical material and to point to flaws in an argument is not to 'attack an individual.' This is an academic debate - it is not a personal attack.

  24. #24
    Hydie Cheung
    Guest
    Hello Parks,

    What you mentioned about you and Mr. Sinclair's new book interested me. If you have any further news regarding to the publishing date or whatsoever useful information, may you inform us in the future, please? Thanks a lot! =D

    And regarding to the controversies on this picture of Mr. Phillips, I agree on what Ing said on previous posts. It's quite unreasonable to say the man on the right is Mr. Harold Bride when Father Browne stated their identities so surely and clearly on his album as and only as:

    "Mr. Jack Phillips (on left), who was lost on the Titanic, taken shortly before his transfer from the 'Adriatie'."

    He never mentioned the identity of the man on the right.

    - Hydie


  25. #25
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    For my part, I'm satisfied. If the family's assessment is not enough, then I'll leave the nature of "evidence" to deeper thinkers than myself.

    Parks

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    393
    Well, unless the both of them just happened to be in the same port on the same day, and just happened to run into each other, wound up on board the Adriatic having a smoke by a lifeboat, and they just HAPPENED to be snapped by a photog several years before the Titanic, but Harold just HAPPENED not to remember having met Jack before, I just don't know how this photo could be of the both of them together.

    The issue of identity in this photo was actually also addressed in the Commutator, in regards to an article about Bride. One of the interesting points made was that this photo could not have been taken on the Titanic because the chocks for the lifeboat were not the same. And if I remember right, it was pointed out that these chocks looked similar to ones on the Adriatic, and this was before Browne's photos were made widely known. So, historical detective work was already on top of this one.

    Never thought there could be so much controversy over one photo...and please do keep us informed of the publication date of the Bride book, Mr. Stephenson.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    I seem to remember that there was a detailed analysis of the background when this photo came up for discussion before in an online forum - this was when the woman claiming to be the current life reincarnation of Harold Bride's wife was insisting that, all evidence to the contrary, this was Philips and Bride and it was taken on the Titanic (!)

  28. #28
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    Hydie and Kritina,

    I promise that I will keep you updated whenever I can.

    Parks

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,280
    Thanks for that tantalising snippet of information on a book or books that might soon be, Parks. Will await either outcome with eager anticipation. Great stuff on Bride's Marconi uniform too, so count me as another interested in this 'minutiae'.

    Lucky, while I agree regarding the importance of keeping an open mind, this is definitely an instance where I find the evidence, from primary contemporary sources, completely convincing.

    Cheers,
    F

  30. #30
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    Attention:
    For the record I checked out some books and did some research and now I am 100% sure that the photo is indeed of Phillips and Bride without a doubt. It is in a book called TITANIC Triumph and Tragedy....second edition by John P. Eaton and Charles A. Haas and is located at the top left corner on page 63. Anyone wanting me to send it I would be glad to e-mail the scanned attachment and hope that you could see the document, if not you can find the book as I did, probably in your local main library. So Parks I may not believe my lunch dates from now on...Brides family seems to be misinformed. By the way Father Francis M. Browne does get credit for the photo. Inger I did see the real evidence in the book and it is a Non-fiction 352 page mountain of information packed with photos. This one states that the ships two wireless operators John (Jack) Phillips (left) and Harold Bride share a smoke on Adriatic's boat dock prior to their transfer to Titanic. P.S. They obviously met prior to the maiden voyage of the Titanic.

  31. #31
    Hydie Cheung
    Guest
    Lucky,

    Would you mind to send me that attachment of the document through email? I would like to take a look at it. My email address is: [email protected]

    Thank you! :-)

    And Inger, do you still have the article about the woman who claimed to be Bride's wife's reincarnation? It sounds fake to me but yet, it sounds interesting as well. Just curious on these little stories. :-P thanks!

    Love,
    Hydie

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    LOLOL! Lucky, I already assumed you were aware of this miscaptioned photo - we've known about it for years, and this is one of the ones that has sparked comment in the past! You should base your research on controversial issues on primary sources, not secondary ones. In a book as extensive as that one, there's bound to be some miscaptioning - this isn't the only instance, as Parks points out. I can think of another off the top of my head - a captioning of a photo with Lowe, his father and sister that refers to his sister as 'Josie' - the woman is in fact Ada. Josie, his daughter, would not be born for another few years.

    Favourite miscaptioning, eh, Parks? That's a tough one...I like Thresh's observation that 'Mrs Ismay survived the sinking', but I suppose strictly speaking she did (along with everyone else who didn't sail on the ship). Perhaps one of the many, many secondary sources - some very reputable - that have the Olympic's officers as the Titanic's? I can think of at least one very reputable secondary source that has Henry Cater as Lightoller.

    I think you're quite safe to continue to trust data derived from your lunch date - just as I'll continue to go along with the evidence of multiple primary sources rather than a secondary source that has no supporting data for its assertion, and is contradicted by the evidence extant!

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Hallo Hydie!

    Sorry, no - I don't have an article on the woman claiming to be the reincarnation of Bride's wife. She's probably still circulating out there on the internet somewhere...!

  34. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    98
    Hello all !

    The Eaton/Haas book is a superb source of information, has often been mentioned on this messageboard, and is probably owned by a fair proportion of the contributors to this board. But as Parks and Inger have shown clearly, there appear to be a number of errors, including the unfortunate mis-captioning cited here.

    It does beg the question - if the gentleman pictured with Jack Phillips is NOT Harold Bride (and personally I'm persuaded by the arguments above that he is not), then who is he? I wonder if the combined resources of our board members could help identify him? There can only be a limited number of candidates.

    To start the ball rolling, if you look at the
    source cited by Fiona above (Glen Dunstan's radio page) http://www.hf.ro/
    there is a photo there of the Olympic's radio operators, Moore and Bagat. Is it just my imagination or does the jauntily-posed Bagat bear at least a passing resemblance to the disputed subject of our discussion??

    cheers,

    bob




  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    G'day Bob!

    I think Jemma Hyder had it on the cards to call up the crew agreements for the Adriatic in order to establish who the wireless operators on her were during Philips' time aboard her - don't know if she got around it. I'll take your Bagat suggestion on board and see if he, or someone else, turns up in the agreements! The name without an image won't be definitive, but it will give us a starting point...and a more likely candidate than Bride.

  36. #36
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    I don't think it was miscaptioned given the sources and if that isn't enough for you to just admit you are wrong then there is nothing more to say on the subject. As far as I am concerned I proved my point. Like you said previously Inger about evidence well I guess everything would never be enough evidence for you. The book is very informative with many photos and isn't it more likely than not the book is correct as the authors captioning of the picture being that of Phillips and Bride in addition the books acknowledgment that is made for the copyright photographs from the Father Francis M. Browne, SJ collection. Now you are going to argue the point of miscaptioning? Maybe it is you who think that if the information didn't come from you or from Parks for that matter, that it could not even be conceived as a true source, especially when it is other than what you had stated. LOL. Now that makes me laugh. Actually me and some friends had a bet last night on the outcome of this information to you and naturally I won as I said that you would never admit you are wrong and that you would say just what you did about the captioning. My friends and I had a good laugh over the whole situation on how someone that was shown the true facts and shunned off what is actually printed as opposed to their own conclusions or a supposed lunch date conversation as being the better source. Father Francis M. Browne had to have stated who was in the picture or at the very least wrote it on the back of the photo. Suck it up! I proved my point, be adult about the situation. You just won't quit and just admit that someone proved you wrong about something. You would rather say everything else was misprinted or misrepresented or anything else than to say there was something that you were debating about the Titanic and were wrong. Case closed. Evidence showed! Move on.

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,280


    I have two different editions of 'Titanic: Triumph & Tragedy' by Eaton and Haas, and like others above, have noted several errors in both editions. While the second edition (1994) does have some corrections, that photo caption on p63 is unfortunately not the only error remaining.

    Eaton and Haas credit Father Browne for the picture - he took it, and it's his handwritten caption I referred to in my above post. Father Browne is a primary source (contemporary account, in his own words, in which he comments on events that he witnessed or participated in), as is Harold Bride's testimony that he and Phillips hadn't met prior to serving on Titanic. The Eaton and Haas book is not a primary source, whatever its other merits. Again, I'll take Father Browne's information on the photographs he took over someone else's captions any day.

    Count me as another interested in who was serving with Phillips on Adriatic. I sincerely hope Jemma (or some other generous soul) has time to look up the records of which Marconi operator (or operators) served alongside him on that ship. Another primary source on this certainly wouldn't hurt.

    Lucky, if you hadn't already seen Glen Dunstan's website I hope you found it of interest. I did get your message but am mystified as to why you think I don't have an email address. I do: it's on my profile page. If you wanted it to send me a scan from Eaton and Haas, thanks for the offer, but I have two copies of the book sitting right next to me. Also, have you seen a copy of the Father Browne album, including his handwritten notes? While the book may not be as common in the US as the Eaton and Haas book, it's not uncommon either, so you'll probably be able to get it through your library even if on an inter-library loan. Unfortunately I don't have a scanner or I'd be happy to oblige.

    Cheers, F

  38. #38
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    Well, Inger, Lucky and her ilk have proved us wrong and exposed us for the manipulative tyrants we really are. Nothing left to do now but haul in our wares, board up the shop and leave Ningnong Alley.

    Parks

  39. #39
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    " but also the identification of the ship (the two men did not serve together on the Adriatic)"
    (former Inger post Sunday, 13 July, 2003)
    P.S. The caption for the photo does not state that Bride and Phillips served together on the Adriatic. It does however state that they shared a smoke on the deck of the Adriatic, not that they served on it together.

    It is entirely possible that Bride's testimony stating that he had not previously met Phillips was most likely true, as they probably met around the time this photo was taken, on their way to the Titanic.


    Posted by Lucky's girlfriend, Nolia

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    As far as you may be concerned you have 'proved your point', but that's not how historical research and methodology work, Lucky. You cannot cite a secondary source and claim it as 'evidence' when there is no primary source to back it up.

    The book is indeed informative and has many photos, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is 'more likely than not' that the book is correct. There are some excellent books out there that have errors in them - e.g. the Henry Cater / Charles Lightoller mistake I mentioned. That is in Titanic: An Illustrated History, which is at least as reputable as Eaton and Haas' work. No historian gets it right every single time. There have already been several instances pointed out to you where photographs have been miscaptioned in this work.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Like you said previously Inger about evidence well I guess everything would never be enough evidence for you.
    Not so. But I demand a higher standard of evidence than you do, and I put more emphasis on primary sources. We have multiple sources that point to this not being Bride. We have, on the other side, your subjective opinion on the appearance of the man, and a caption that constitutes a secondary source and which lacks a reference. For someone trained in historical methodology, it is very clear where the weight of evidence lies.

    [indent]
    quote:

    the books acknowledgment that is made for the copyright photographs from the Father Francis M. Browne, SJ collection. Now you are going to argue the point of miscaptioning?
    Absolutely. That's what I can and am doing. When you've been around the Titanic community a bit longer, you'll find out how prevelant the problem of miscaptioning is! We've already pointed out a couple of errors in the very book you cite. The copyright covers the image itself - it does not cover the caption. The original caption - the one supplied by Father Browne himself - clearly identifies only Philips. This has been supplied to you earlier in this conversation, and you have chosen to ignore it. Eaton and Haas do not identify how they arrived at their identification of Bride: without a reference, and given that it contradicts other sources, this is worthless as evidence.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Maybe it is you who think that if the information didn't come from you or from Parks for that matter, that it could not even be conceived as a true source, especially when it is other than what you had stated.
    Both Parks and I have been aware of this miscaptioning for many years, as it has been discussed before quite extensively. Most of the denizens of the Titanic community are well are that this was debunked many years ago. I can't speak for Parks, although I have tremendous respect for his objectivity and quest for all sources, but I reject utterly your suggestion that insinuates bias on our part. We keenly seek after new sources, but only if they are legitimate. The so-called 'proof' you supplied is neither a 'new' source (it's a very old one that most of us here were already aware of) and it's not a convincing counter-source at all.

    [indent]
    quote:

    I said that you would never admit you are wrong and that you would say just what you did about the captioning. My friends and I had a good laugh over the whole situation on how someone that was shown the true facts and shunned off what is actually printed as opposed to their own conclusions or a supposed lunch date conversation as being the better source.
    I suggest that you and your friends study historical methodology a bit closer, and then you might understand what 'true facts' are. I repeat again: what you have cited is a secondary source that is unsupported by contemporary evidence. Titanic literature is litered with miscaptioned photos and errors, and even the most reliable of sources have them. Unless you can prove that there is a legitimate contemporary source at the base of this, then this is worth no more than the paper it was printed on.

    As for a 'supposed lunch date conversation' - given that Parks has given as specific attribution for this source (even going so far as to name the family member from which the information is derived), yes - this does consitute better evidence for the discarding of the 'Bride' identification. Parks is an established researcher with an impeccable record in this field. He has provided a source for his data, rather than just pluck it out of the ether.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Father Francis M. Browne had to have stated who was in the picture or at the very least wrote it on the back of the photo.
    He did. The actual caption written by Father Browne has been photographed and replicated in a book of his Titanic related photographs. The caption is as cited above. The Eaton and Haas caption has nothing to do with how Browne originally captioned the photo. This angle has been examined and addressed before by those working with the photos.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Suck it up! I proved my point, be adult about the situation. You just won't quit and just admit that someone proved you wrong about something. You would rather say everything else was misprinted or misrepresented or anything else than to say there was something that you were debating about the Titanic and were wrong. Case closed. Evidence showed! Move on.
    If there is a question about being adult about this situation, it should be directed at you (a side note as moderator of this forum: I must caution you about using innappropriate language such as 'suck it up'). You have not proved your point at all, although you have demonstrated a lack of the following:

    1.) Comprehension of historical methodology, what constitutes primary and secondary sources, and the need to assess and weigh up evidence.

    2.) What is and is not a 'fact'

    3.) Understanding and familiarity with Titanic literature and sources and

    4.) Good manners and netiquette.

    This case may well be closed, but not in the way you think. If the best you can muster in opposition to multiple sources arguing against he identification of Bride is a caption to a photo that differs from the original caption and for which no source is provided, you've lost the debate.


  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    [indent]
    quote:

    It is entirely possible that Bride's testimony stating that he had not previously met Phillips was most likely true, as they probably met around the time this photo was taken, on their way to the Titanic.
    Unfortunately not possible, Nolia. Philips' previous berth was not the Adriatic - he served aboard the Oceanic after that, and it was from the Oceanic that he transferred to the Titanic.


  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,280
    [indent]
    quote:

    Father Francis M. Browne had to have stated who was in the picture or at the very least wrote it on the back of the photo.
    Father Browne, who took the photo, didn't record that it was Bride with Phillips. He only names Phillips. Bride stated at the US Senate enquiry that he hadn't met Phillips before Titanic.

    Lucky, have you had the opportunity to look at Father Browne's book, with the information on the photograph in Father Browne's handwriting? Why is a secondary source (Eaton and Haas) more credible than the person who took the photograph?

    Also, why do you think Bride lying about not having met Phillips before Titanic? They met on Titanic, in Belfast. See Bride's testimony at the US Senate enquiry, so you don't have to take my word for it.

    You (or Nolia) have suggested that Bride and Phillips could've shared a fag on Adriatic's deck before joining Titanic. Where and when? It wasn't in Belfast as that year Adriatic was on the Liverpool/New York run (as per Haws, Merchant Fleets in Profile 2, 1979). Why didn't Father Browne recognise Bride? Father Browne knew who Phillips was and the Titanic connection.

    There is someone in this thread who isn't admitting that they were proved wrong in the face of supporting primary sources easily checked. However, it's certainly not Parks or Inger.

    Good night,
    F




  43. #43
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    I appreciate everyone's input into this matter, however I still believe what I originally stated. Unless I read otherwise, it stands as is. I will however, look up the book by Father Francis M. Brown ( thank you for the source Fiona) and further my research into this Phillips/Bride picture. To you Inger, I say possibilities are around every turn. Nothing is ever cut and dry. Sometimes one has to open their minds to see the possibilities of something other than what they believe to be as opposed to what is stated in print. That's all for me now - until I further my research.

  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    I think it would be a good idea to further your research, Lucky - although in this instance, the pertinent facts re. the Father Browne caption (including a direct citation of his caption for the photo in question) are in the posts in this thread. Still, I always urge people to go back to primary sources!

    You can believe whatever you like - no one can force you to accept the evidence or the facts that have been presented to you in contradiction to the theory you find appealing. You suggest that 'nothing is ever cut and dried' - sometimes that's the case and the world is full of shades of gray. But sometimes the facts are clear enough for us to state with considerable certainty where the weight of evidence lies. That is the case with the evidence against this being a photo of Bride.

    A word of advice to you as you further your Titanic studies. Don't put blind faith in published histories - whether that be in photo captions or in the bulk of the text. Just because it's in print doesn't mean it's a 'fact' - there are many errors, misconceptions, half-truths, conjecture masquerading as fact, etc etc in published Titanic sources. Researchers can honestly make mistakes, and even the best and most scrupulous of author/historians can be in error. There has never been a comprehensive Titanic book published that did not contain an error of some type or other.

    On a controversial issue, go back to primary sources. Don't accept without question a secondary source. In this case, the primary sources are the Browne album and his caption, Bride's testimony, and the crew agreements of the Titanic that demonstrate that Philips' previous berth was the Oceanic.

    Also, be aware that new sources are emerging all the time. As Parks has pointed out, up until now - other than occasional contact with researchers - the Bride family have chosen not to have a public profile. This has changed with one of his nephews choosing to discuss the matter publicly with Parks - from the point of view of research into the wireless officers, this is a tremendous breakthrough, as are the insights he has decided to share. This is what makes the family's observations on the photo so important - we finally have their input on this source.

    I've always been open to persuasion and have often had cause to change my views on Titanic related matters, but only when the evidence is substantive and persuasive. Keeping an open mind is good advice, and I hope you do so.



  45. #45
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    A word of advice to you as you further your Titanic studies. Don't put blind faith in published histories - (AS YOU PUT IT)

    My reply- "No...I should believe you"!

    My research will continue based on historical documentation interest rather than internet hearsay! End Of Post!

  46. #46
    Trent Pheifer
    Guest
    I am going to have to go with Inger and Parks on this one. I can be very open minded about things relating to Titanic, b/c there are many things that are still a mystery. But when something comes up that has the evidence (first hand) stating that the other person in the picture is NOT Bride it is very hard to contest that. As said above you cannot always trust 2nd hand sources....Eaton and Haas are two of the historians I trust the most, but there is bound to be at least one mistake in a 300 or so page book. And about the whole "being adult" I am not so sure Lucky you are the prime example for "being adult" You are taking a very childish way of researching history...but I think its good that you are now going to do some more research into it. But weigh the facts:

    Pros for It being Bride:

    -Eaton and Haas state it in a caption
    -Lucky's opinion that it looks like him

    Cons for it being Bride

    -Browne never mentions it in the ORIGINAL caption
    -Bride stating he never met Phillips before
    -Bride family denying it is Bride
    -Like Inger said Phillips transferred from the Oceanic to Titanic..so the theory that it was right before being transferred doesn't hold up.

    The evidence just does not hold up that it is Bride.

    Now that it seems that the person is not Bride, I would love to know who it is. Are the sign-on books for Adriatic readily available? You guys has sparked my interest!

    -Trent

  47. #47
    Trent Pheifer
    Guest
    Woops guess I took to long to read all the posts and respond! There are three new ones above mine that I never read! I guess I'm just slow!

    -Trent

  48. #48
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    Trent,

    I'll add one last nugget to your list of "cons":

    The two men in the photograph in question are wearing two different styles of Marconi cap badges. Phillips has the "fancy M," the other man, the "plain M." There was some variation in emblems, as each was handmade from gold bullion thread, so what one wore was often dependent on where the item was purchased. The cap that Phillips wears in the Adriatic photo is identical in style to the one he wears in his formal portrait.

    In the formal portrait of Bride, which has yet to be published but exists nonetheless, Bride is wearing a uniform cap with -- you guessed it -- the "fancy M." It's a different cap than the one that Phillips wears for his portrait (Bride has the white cover, Phillips the blue), but the workmanship and style of both emblems is almost identical.

    In those days, the operators had to purchase their own uniforms. With their wages, owning more than one cap was rare. Given the similarity of the cap badges, I would speculate that both men bought their caps from the same vendor.

    This is not definitive evidence. There are many derivations that one can derive from this. But this is one more piece of a puzzle that can be put together any way one wishes.

    Parks

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    [indent]
    quote:

    My reply- "No...I should believe you"!
    You don't have to 'believe me' at all - go and check out all the sources I've cited if you doubt what I've told you. I've invented nothing - it's all documented and freely available. If you have a question about anything I've told you, feel free to ask and I'll give you a source.

    [indent]
    quote:

    My research will continue based on historical documentation interest rather than internet hearsay! End Of Post!
    I'm delighted it will - I certainly hope it does extend to historical documentation and not the secondary sources and opinion on perceived resemblances that you've thus far relied upon (you haven't drawn on any 'historical documentation' at all to date). Nothing I've cited here has been 'internet hearsay' - it's all documented and can be very easily verified by the most rudimentary research. Bride's testimony is available on-line, the Browne book isn't difficult to find, and the crew agreements can be located on this website.

    As for the evidence Parks has offered - when you've been around a bit and learned who is who in the Titanic research community, you'll find that there are people whose word about their research is absolutely trustworthy. I'd trust Parks' report of interaction he has had with the Bride family and information they have given him as well as any published source secondary source, if not a good deal more. He is a respected, published author/historian, who has acted as a consultant to both documentaries and books. Pick up a copy of Ghosts of the Abyss and see who's name you find in the acknowledgements - or watch the movie, if you prefer, and keep an eye out when the credits start rolling. He's the man who did the work on the Marconi room. You may also have caught him interviewed in a documentary that aired recently, talking about this area, where his expertise is second to none.

  50. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Thanks for that additional bit of evidence, Parks! Very interesting indeed. And thanks for your input too, Trent. I need to ascertain if the Adriatic's crew agreements for this are at the PRO or possibly at Newfoundland. I had heard once source suggesting they were at the PRO, but a look at the catalogue didn't turn them up. Perhaps someone else knows? If not, I'll give them a go when I'm next ordering documents from Newfoundland.

  51. #51
    Hydie Cheung
    Guest
    Another thing I was thinking about a moment ago. While I was looking at Father Browne's album to take a further look on the picture, I noticed that the pictures of Phillips and Bride were two seperated pictures on the same page. The one with Jack Phillips is shown above at the first post of this thread. And the one with Harold Bride is shown in this link: http://www.hf.ro/real%20mgy%20rroom.jpg

    Just my opinion. If the the gentleman on Phillips's right was really Bride, why didn't Father Browne just put their names together in one captions instead of two? I am pretty sure that wasn't Bride now.

    - Hydie

  52. #52
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    Hydie you are somewhat off the page here and the track gets farther from making sense with every post. Every photo is going to have a caption.
    Well yet more proof turned up in Time Life Books/The Discovery Channel that also states the Photo is of Bride and Phillips. Yet another great source of true fact here I'd say.
    Parks interaction with the Bride family is something I cannot and will not even try to say I know are to be true.
    Thanks but no thanks Inger about going to you for any and all info...there are many more expert written and recorded facts that go by truth and not mere speculation or another claimed inside source that I know not to be fact.
    Still I will continue to be interested in reading and seeing any and all that I can on the subject of the titanic.
    This post has somehow turned into everyone piling on me rather than opening their minds to a possibility of something other than what is just believed to be or a so-called meeting for lunch in the San Diego area around the North Park section with a nephew of Harold Bride as claimed by Parks.
    What it all comes down to is there are many sources that support the Phillips/Bride photo as it truly being the two on the dock of the Adriatic when the photo was taken and ones of good solid grounds such as Time Life Books/Discovery Channel. When I weigh out the two sides I just don't have a credible one for sure facts other than what Parks says or what Inger says and all the others that just want to back them up instead of really thinking of the not so true possibilities here.
    More research is being done and more evidence is piling up all the time. Yes I am a believer that this photo is indeed Phillips and Bride. Time Life Books and The Discovery Channel just does not merely speculate and whats more if it was not Phillips and Bride in the photo they certainly would have captioned it as being John (Jack) Phillips and possibly Harold Bride or who appears to be Harold Bride.
    Will inform you if anymore sources state who the photo is of and will let you know who the source is as well.
    Till then....the more words you write the bigger your appetite will have to be.


  53. #53
    Trent Pheifer
    Guest
    This is in no way a "gang up against Lucky" issue. We are just trying to show you that it is not Bride!! You still have given us NO hard evidence that it is him.

    You say: "Well yet more proof turned up in Time Life Books/The Discovery Channel that also states the Photo is of Bride and Phillips. Yet another great source of true fact here I'd say."

    Do you want to know to know where they most likely found the information to caption their picture in their book? Eaton and Haas. If you notice in the bibliography Triumph and Tragedy is stated. They most likely saw the caption took it as the truth and reprinted it without even thinking of double checking.

    It is how myths turn into fact...they are started and just repeated over and over until they become the "truth".

    As much as you want to think Time/life checked every fact b/c they are a big company that is far from the truth...and example would be the History Channel which many times is wrong.

    -Trent

    PS If it ever comes to it I will sit down and have a nice dinner out of eating my words. But then again I just don't think that is going to happen with this subject.

  54. #54
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    Lucky,

    Dinner, not "lunch." North Park? Where did you get that idea? Must be a place that you're familiar with, because it's not really my section of town. You've gone beyond defending your opinion and are now deliberately provoking. Would you like to tell us why?

    Like I said at the beginning, Lucky, good luck with your version of events. And whatever you do, please keep talking. You leave quite an impression.

    Parks

  55. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,549
    Lucky, excuse my frankness, but you are fighting in the wrong weight division. Inger and Parks, who have shown you more consideration than I would, are extremely able researchers, who have seen more primary sources than you ever will. I'll charitably assume you know what primary sources are, though I suspect you don't. Hint: they are not Eaton and Haas or Time Life Books.

    Books about Titanic are riddled with errors and incorrect captions are a dime a dozen. I could show you a photo that is allegedly of Joseph Boxhall. It's actually his father. There's a notorious photo of Olympic's officers that's almost invariably claimed to show the officers of Titanic. Errors are copied from book to book by those whose main aim is to get something profitable into print with minimum effort.

    Pardon my remarks, but I suggest you post less and spend the time saved in studying the true meaning of research.
    Dave Gittins
    Titanic: Monument and Warning.
    http://titanicebook.com/Book.html

  56. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Lucky, just another note of warning: If that comment about where Parks met with the Sinclair was intended as provocation, given the reputation of the area, you're skating on very thin ice.

    Trent is absolutely correct in his statement that this is not a matter of 'ganging up' - it's a matter of where the evidence lies and what the nature of substantive research is. The people who have commented in this thread have been involved in Titanic research for a long time, and are familiar with both sources and methodology. They are accustomed to a critical assessment of data and of the manner in which academic debate is conducted. Books often repeat earlier published errors - particularly if they appear in a book that is considered reputable. If repetition of an identification made it a 'fact,' then we'd still be identifying Holehouse as Moody, Cater as Lightoller, Hume as Pitman etc. etc. Come to think of it, some books still are using the Olympic officer photos as photographs of the Titanic's crew, in spite of the fact that they have been thoroughly debunked. As Dave G. could tell you, it's not hard to find repetitions of errors that have become imbedded in the Titanic canon...Rappahannock springs to mind.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Thanks but no thanks Inger about going to you for any and all info...there are many more expert written and recorded facts that go by truth and not mere speculation or another claimed inside source that I know not to be fact.
    You do not 'know' anything not to be a fact (a double negative there, but it's early in the morning). You began with a closed mind, and have since shown a determination not to accept any evidence put to you, preferring to go to secondary sources rather than look at primary sources. I don't ask you to go to me for 'any and all' info, but as you've been talking about 'internet hearsay' and suggesting that I have required you to only trust what I've said, then I challenge you to point to any evidence I have put forward in this debate that is not backed up by primary material. Everything I have said is verifiable through readily available sources.

    Park's reputation and credibility on this board and in the wider Titanic community need no justification. This is a man who is a recognised and acknowledged expert in this particular area, and whose expertise is consulted by other historians. He has earned the respect of his colleagues through sheer hard work. It is a grotesque insult to an established and reputable researcher and author to talk about his 'supposed' meeting. Parks stated what took place, and I would no more doubt his account than I would doubt any researcher here who has established their reputation through skill and hard work.

    You need to look into what really constitutes 'research' before you make claims about it 'piling up'. Research - except of the most elementary, novice kind, reserved for school reports - does not involve popping down to the local library or bookshop and picking up a few books, leaving it there. Resesarch involves looking at and critically assessing sources, and in particular primary sources. A claim of an historical fact - e.g. the identification of two men in a photo - is useless unless it can be backed up with primary sources. In this case, there is no such backing and, instead, we find that the historical sources mitigate against it. This is a basic principle of research methodology, and simply choosing to ignore it, as you are doing, will not make it go away.

    [indent]
    quote:

    What it all comes down to is there are many sources that support the Phillips/Bride photo as it truly being the two on the dock of the Adriatic when the photo was taken and ones of good solid grounds such as Time Life Books/Discovery Channel.
    No, there are not 'many sources' supporting the idea. There are two books, one of which uses the other as a source, and a caption that is contradicted by the original caption composed by Father Browne.

    [indent]
    quote:

    When I weigh out the two sides I just don't have a credible one for sure facts other than what Parks says or what Inger says and all the others that just want to back them up instead of really thinking of the not so true possibilities here.
    The problem here is that you have not 'weighed up' the evidence at all. You've started with a pre-determined notion that the photo must be Bride and Philips, and you've ignored all evidence to the contrary. You've continually implied or even stated that there is just our word for it that it is not Bride. This is flying in the face of evidence.





  57. #57
    Hydie Cheung
    Guest
    No one knows the truth here, Lucky. Maybe you were right, although I personally agree that Inger and Parks have a stronger amount of statements and evidences to back up their points. I agree on their points about the references the Discovery Channel has used. It is not impossible that they might have used the mistaken resources.

    And again, there is no "gang" here against you. We are just having a little debate in here on this particular controversial photo. That's why this board exist. Making different hypothesis is good, but do not close your mind from reading and thinking about the new evidences. It's a little rude to say something like "...rather than opening their minds to a possibility of something other than what is just believed to be or a so-called meeting for lunch in the San Diego area around the North Park section with a nephew of Harold Bride as claimed by Parks... " He does not have to make up stories like that.

    - Hydie

  58. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    393
    For some reason, I'm blaming myself because I even answered this in the first place...but in regards to errors and the Discovery Channel, those certainly have taken place. One that comes to mind is a major faux pas when they were referring to the third class gates being locked...along with the narration was a video of gates being locked, and a picture superimposed over that of Jack Phillips. The narration accompanying this was about the officers having ordered the gates to be locked. Now, if this is not a major, major inaccuracy (both of them!!!), then I do not know what is!

    (And it took me twenty minutes to stop screaming at the TV over that...).

  59. #59
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    Excuse me Inger...I lived in North Park and I liked it very well as I also did Hillcrest which is my kind of place with many family there. (Catch my drift?) I was pointing out that I know San Diego as I have lived there for about thirteen years. Having Dinner with Brides nephew is a little out of believability. Where are yours and Parks sources coming from. Just because it is a relative saying it (If they truly did) does not make it so. As far as the court documentation goes Bride probably was telling the truth as Phillips and Bride met just before Titanic voyage. Pay attention to the details of my post.
    Seems that some here get off track and end up all over the place. I will defend my stand on this unless the proof is not just a chance meeting or context that is taken out of place or what someone said as the tales as everyone knows get taller on down the line and change in the story telling the further it gets. People say how it could have been copied or that the info is known to be false. There are a lot of times that the facts about the story they are telling are indeed true. I say more often than not! Still everyone will think of the possibilities that it is not rather than is just to side with the majority here. Instead of pointing out how it may not be told correctly just think of the possibilities that it very may well be. What's to say that is isn't them...it's not that hard to see. Some are just to bent on that it is not them to even consider that it very well may be. My research is not done and if it is the last thing I do ...I will prove my Theory. It is a picture and they speak louder than words. I see where it looks like Bride in that photo. That's just my opinion. If I went around believing everything everyone said, I'm sure there would be a hexagon shape of sides to every subject. I have my own mind to think things through, take everything into consideration and take in all that is before me to see the complete picture. The picture I look at is of Phillips and Bride which is a major part of my opinion here along with printed captions as opposed to what everyone here just says. I am inclined to see that more clearly than with the post of claiming that some here are great sources. That is my feeling at this time and I can't really explain why just that it is. I guess you could say at this time I am convinced.

  60. #60
    Parks Stephenson
    Guest
    Lucky,

    Whether or not you believe the man in the picture is Bride matters not to me. Your opinions have never affected, and probably will never affect, my research or work on the subject.

    What I do object to, though, is your continual attacks on my word and credibility. In these public attacks, you make assumptions that are at variance with the facts. In your view, I had a chance luncheon with a relative of Bride's. In reality, it was an arranged business meeting. Since the man flew in from out of town, we chose to meet in a restaurant, and since you know San Diego, you should know that not all area restaurants are located in the North Park/Hillcrest area. In our instance, we actually conducted our business in North County. But that's minutiae...our initial meeting is not important, only our end product will be.

    By the way, let's also not assume that this meeting convinced me that the person in the photo is not Bride. For the reasons that Trent outlined above, I was already of the opinion that Bride does not appear in the Adriatic photo. Because of this, my discussion with Bride's relative on the subject was limited to maybe 2 sentences. There was no need to pursue the subject further because we were in complete agreement. An e-mail from him last night reinforced that. Of course, just because he and I are in agreement doesn't mean that you have to accept it. And just because you don't accept it is no reason for you to insinuate that I fabricated my discussions with the man. If you have so much confidence in your view of events, why do you feel the necessity to attack my personal credibility?

    To address another of your accusations, my "tale" may become more detailed as the debate continues, but it doesn't change. You, however, are adding your own fabrications to my story and then accusing me of telling tall tales. I would like for you to stop doing that, even though you are doing yourself no favours in doing so.

    I must correct myself. When I stated above that your opinions have never affected my research, I misspoke. This extended debate on the subject, thanks to your protestations, caught the eye of a man in England who in turn sent an e-mail to me yesterday. Turns out that the man, who is a senior engineer at a communications company, is the grandson of Harold and Lucy Bride's daughter. I must say, if not for this quite visible debate, I probably would never have had the opportunity to speak with another member of the Bride family. So, in a roundabout way, I must thank you for being the catalyst for our introduction.

    I have said from the beginning that you are welcome to your own opinion. I continually wish you luck in your research on the issue. And I cannot understand why you are unable to reciprocate or show tolerance for anyone of a different orientation.

    Parks

  61. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    [indent]
    quote:

    I was pointing out that I know San Diego as I have lived there for about thirteen years.
    That doesn't explain why you placed the dinner with Parks in that specific area.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Having Dinner with Brides nephew is a little out of believability.
    Why? Parks is one of the leading experts in the world on wireless technology of that era. He has written very well received articles on the subject, has been consulted for books, is working with a publisher towards a full-scale work on the subject, and has been interviewed for the making of documentaries. Have you seen the new Ghosts of the Abyss movie? Want to know whose hand it is you see working the wireless equipment? Not the actor who played Philips - that was Parks, a nice acknowledgement of the tremendous amount of work he had put in for his astonishing work on interpreting the data collated by Cameron's team during filming on the wreck. His work on reconstructing the 'silent room' has completely overturned our previous assumptions about this area of ship equipment.

    My colleague, Jemma Hyder, has done a tremendous amount of work on wireless operators. She, too, has been in contact with George Sinclair, and can confirm his relationship with Bride. It is no wonder that this gentleman would seek to have contact with Parks, given his pre-eminence in the field.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Just because it is a relative saying it (If they truly did) does not make it so.
    You are showing extraordinary discourtesy to Parks by insinuating he may be lying. It doesn't reflect at all upon him, but it reflects very badly on you. That aside, the statement by a member of the family, read in conjuction (not isolation) with the other evidence, is very powerful indeed. I'll take their view over your subjective opinion any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

    [indent]
    quote:

    As far as the court documentation goes Bride probably was telling the truth as Phillips and Bride met just before Titanic voyage. Pay attention to the details of my post.
    I suggest you pay attention to several previous posts (and, as an aside, familiarise yourself with the nature of the evidence. This was not a 'court', it was testimony given under oath at an inquiry.)

    The photo could not have been taken en route to the Titanic as suggested by you (or your girlfriend), for reasons that have already been explained to you.

    1.) Both Browne's original caption and the erroneous Eaton & Haas caption state that it was taken aboard the Adriatic. Brown's correct caption, placing it on the Adriatic, takes us back to the previous year.

    2.)Bride said that he had not met Philips before they met for the first time in Belfast upon joining the Titanic.

    3.) The Adriatic was not in Belfast.

    4.) Philips' previous berth was not the Adriatic. He spent the latter half of 1911 on the Adriatic, and in early 1912 joined the Oceanic. It was from the Oceanic that he joined the Titanic. The Eaton & Haas photo suggesting that they were enjoying a smoke before tranferring to the Titanic is clearly in error in light of this information and Bride's testimony.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Seems that some here get off track and end up all over the place. I will defend my stand on this unless the proof is not just a chance meeting or context that is taken out of place or what someone said as the tales as everyone knows get taller on down the line and change in the story telling the further it gets.
    There is certainly obfuscation of the key facts here, and it's on your part. You simply will not accept the simple evidence that contradicts the Bride identification. This convoluted statement is an attempt to muddy the waters of what is essentially a very simple matter.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Instead of pointing out how it may not be told correctly just think of the possibilities that it very may well be.
    You have yet to produce any primary sources suggesting that it 'very may well be' - in fact, the evidence overwhelmingly mitgates against it.

    [indent]
    quote:

    What's to say that is isn't them...it's not that hard to see.
    What's to say it isn't them?

    Bride's testmony.
    Browne's caption.
    The Oceanic and Titanic agreements that prove the Adriatic was not his previous ship
    The view of Bride's family that it is NOT him in the photo
    And, finally, a complete lack of contemporary primary sources that suggest that it is him.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Some are just to bent on that it is not them to even consider that it very well may be. My research is not done and if it is the last thing I do ...I will prove my Theory. It is a picture and they speak louder than words. I see where it looks like Bride in that photo. That's just my opinion.
    As you point out, that's just your opinion. It certainly differs from mine, and I've done a lot of work on the identification of figures in photographs of mercantile navy in that era. In other words, a perceived physical resemblance is a matter of personal opinion, highly subjective, and worthless as evidence. What's more, you're approaching this with completely the wrong methodology. Researchers and historians don't determine a position and then find evidence, which is what you're doing here. You've already decided that's Bride, you're ignoring the evidence presented to you that it isn't, and you announce that you're going to keep on going until you find some facts that you like!

    As I've said before, you are entitled to believe what you like. If you want to believe that the moon is made of a calcium-rich dairy product, the Titanic was switched with the Olympic, and that a 'feeling' counts more towards historical truth than primary sources, then that's your prerogative. It says an awful lot about your grasp of history and this subject, however. And what it says isn't positive.






  62. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Hear hear, Parks. I think one of the most distasteful aspects of this entire discussion has been the continued insinuations and downright attacks upon your credibility as a researcher and your veracity in reporting the result of your discussions with Bride's family.

    Of course, as I said above, this attitude on the part of Lucky does nothing to diminish your credibility or standing on this subject. It does, however, reflect very badly on his/her own.

  63. #63
    Trent Pheifer
    Guest
    Ditto to what Parks and Inger have said in the last couple of posts. Lucky you have done one thing that I cannot stand in a researcher...trying to discredit someone for your own person gain of your theory. Like Inger said If Parks said he met with a relative of Bride, then he did! He is a very credible person in the Titanic community. Now if I stated that I met with a relative of Bride I could see if people questioned that!

    You are fighting and uphill battle with Parks and Inger. Like Dave said.."Inger and Parks, who have shown you more consideration than I would, are extremely able researchers, who have seen more primary sources than you ever will. "

    Also, you say that the picture looks like him...that is your only "proof." I took a hard look at the Browne picture and many pictures from that era of Bride and I don't think it really looks like him in the Browne picture. But it's just my opinion...

    -Trent

  64. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,190
    Lucky, speaking as one of the moderating team, I'll trouble you to click on The Forum Rules and read them thoroughly, and please understand that you will be held to them the same as anybody else. You're attacks on Park's integrity are way over the line of personal attack and I assure that my colleagues who have control over this folder will no longer tolerate them.

  65. #65
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    I really don't care who sides with who and who believes who! I have my own thoughts and opinions as all of you do. I don't agree with you as you obviously don't agree with me. Whether you had dinner with Brides relative in North County or not, is not for me to believe or not believe. It is good that all of you are such good friends and stick by each other. Inger as to the area of North Park, anyone familiar with the area knows that the Naval base and Hospital are just on the outskirts of the North Park/Hillcrest borders. The areas have no bad reputation just good people who know how to be themselves and proud of it. No one is slamming anyone here and I feel just as Parks or anyone does for that matter about being respected. There are two sides to a coin.

  66. #66
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    "You're attacks on Park's integrity are way over the line of personal attack and I assure that my colleagues who have control over this folder will no longer tolerate them."

    Michael, I don't feel I have attacked anyone's integrity. I have stated very simply that I do not agree with some of the views of other members. I don't feel that because I don't believe every statement someone makes, regardless of their pull in the community, is attacking their integrity. I am not going to agree with what everyone says, as they are not going to agree with what I say. I am not mindless, and I like to draw my own conclusions. As far as I knew, these posts were for opinions based on research and belief.

    I will say again, I feel nothing I have said was an attack on anyone's integrity. I am entitled to believe what I want, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Parks, but I do not base my beliefs on hear say. I don't personally know anyone in this room, so I will stick to the primary sources.

    I don't feel I should be made to agree in order to be here. I don't think it's fair to be continually threatened because you misunderstand what I am saying and turn it into something attacking.

    I mean really this has just turned into a dogpile against me. Because I don't agree with you and I don't accept what you say to be first-hand evidence I'm to be accused of attacking someone's integrity, threatened repeatedly, and not really given a chance to have my case heard with an open mind. We are totally past the point of hearing each other out. You feel everything I say is a personal attack and I feel I am not being heard. There is really no reason to further this debate, you have stopped showing any new evidence and have resorted to posting only attacks and threats upon me.

    I don't feel adequate proof has been shown for me to believe that this photo is not Bride. I still believe it is Bride. I am sorry if this angers you, as it seems to, but I feel we are entitled to our own opinions based on research and fact.

    The question in the beginning of this post is "what do you think?". I said what I think, you said what you think, and suddenly because you cannot force me into your way of thinking, I am an outcast - to be banned and exiled from the Titanic post. You win simply because my side of the matter is silenced. So if I am banned, then shall victory be won?





  67. #67
    Susan Leighton
    Guest
    Just last week I watched a documentary on The History Channel in which Parks, himself, was interviewed as "Titanic Historian". He definetly knows what he's talking about. I am VERY impressed that he even graces us with his presence on this forum.
    Why are ya'll even giving this guy (Lucky) the time of day.
    -Susan Y. Leighton

  68. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    [indent]
    quote:

    I don't personally know anyone in this room, so I will stick to the primary sources.
    In the rules that you have been requested to read, it is recommended that before jumping in you read a bit of the contents of the forum and get to know the personalities here. If you had taken the time to do some research, and if you had even an elementary knowledge of the Titanic research world, you would realise who Parks is and why he commands the respect here that he does. At any rate, you have not utilised any primary sources to date. The books you have cited are secondary sources. I recommend you go and brush up on both historiographical terminology and the application of the concepts it covers.

    [indent]
    quote:

    I will say again, I feel nothing I have said was an attack on anyone's integrity. I am entitled to believe what I want, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Parks, but I do not base my beliefs on hear say.
    Go and have a look at the definition for 'hearsay'. Hearsay is 'rumour or gossip'. Parks' report of his conversation is neither. Parks was present, and he has provided a direct cite for his source - he has even gone so far as to name the specific individual from which he has derived this information. You will find that many of the sources upon which we base our research in Titanic circles are oral, and a good deal of information is derived from interviews etc. that researchers conduct with family members.

    What is more you have indeed attacked Parks' integrity. You have repeatedly insinuated that he has lied or misrepresented his conversation with Sinclair.

    [indent]
    quote:

    I don't feel I should be made to agree in order to be here. I don't think it's fair to be continually threatened because you misunderstand what I am saying and turn it into something attacking.
    You will not be 'made' to agree to anything. However, if you continue to posit theories based on nothing more substantial than a secondary source, in contradiction to primary sources, you can expect to find that others will disagree with you. And you have not been threatened - you have been warned. Three times now, by two moderators. If you continue in this vein, action will be taken. This is a moderated forum, and in signing up you agree to participate according to the rules that have been laid down.

    The reason you have failed to win support for your theory is that it a.) lacks corroborating historical detail and b.) it is contradicted by the extant primary sources. There is no agenda on the part of the ET membership - had any individual, including Parks, myself, or anyone who has posted in this thread put forward a similarly baseless hypothesis that was contradicted by the evidence, other members of the forum would have responded by pointing this out. Had we persisted in spite of evidence to keep blindly insisting that we were right, and then accused everyone else of being closed minded, we would have received a very cold reception indeed.

    To suggest that there is an agenda against you, when you have have behaved in a manner violating the rules of debate on this forum and posting in an offensive and inflammatory manner, adds insult to the original injury.


  69. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,566
    All of the above aside- I suspect this photo in contension might be enlarged, especially the facial features, and given to an individual trained in such matters of photo identification. With a reputable photo of Bride existing, and usable for comparison in areas of bone structure, feature measurements, etc., this is a piece of cake for the pro. Facial measurements can be almost as individual as fingerprints, right down to the earlobe configuration. There was just such a programme about forensics departments of major city police forces-which have captured criminals by matching up photographic evidence. If anyone out there has a connection- I say copy the photos and go for it! Computers have made facial reference point comparisons a regular science, with amazing accuracy. I should love to have it be Bride.

  70. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    393
    "Facial measurements can be almost as individual as fingerprints, right down to the earlobe configuration."

    Would you believe I've already done something like this with the photo in controversy, and I can tell you that the earlobes of Bride and the unidentified man in the Adriatic photo don't quite match up? In a way, one could almost make a case for this man being Bride (there are some slight physical resemblances)...and yet, the ears don't match up. Make of that what you will...

    "I don't personally know anyone in this room, so I will stick to the primary sources."

    Well, I don't exactly personally know anyone here either, but I know instinctually when good research counts as good research.

  71. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    G'day Shelley!

    [indent]
    quote:

    I should love to have it be Bride.
    Yes, it would be nice to have a photo of the two wireless operators together. I know I was disappointed when this came up for discussion years ago and the evidence against it being the two men was put forward. It's rather like the photograph of the Olympic officers masquerading as the men on the Titanic's Bridge - I would very much like to see a photo of all of them assembled, and it was disappointing to pull it all together and establish definitively who they were (as an aside, I note that in a post above I have Holehouse down as a misidentified Moody - my fault for writing in haste. Holehouse was of course misidentified as Lowe - it was Tulloch who was lobbed with the Moody i.d.

    Photographic analysis would indeed be one way of establishing the truth. Just looking at photos of Bride and this operator (chin, breadth of cheekbones, set of the eyes etc) the two look to me to be distinctly different, but of course I'm a layperson. Until such time as an analysis could be done, we can only go on the documentary evidence extant - and that mitigates against this being Bride (unless, of course, we decide Bride was a fibber...and the two happened to be together on the Adriatic in 1911, Bride presumably just visiting as he was not posted aboard her...!).

  72. #72
    Allison Lane
    Guest
    Hi all--

    Might I humbly suggest that further posts from Lucky on this subject be ignored? I'm not trying to blame anyone or speak out of place; I just don't want this to escalate any further than it already has, into an all-out flame war.

    It has been my experience that Parks and Inger are both very capable and dedicated researchers in the field and have done more than I could ever hope to match. It disappoints me to see them being insulted like this.


    -Allison L., hoping she hasn't angered anyone

  73. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,566
    Sounds intriguing Kritina! With the state of the art computer tools, caliper measurements- distinguishing marks (like enlarged pores, direction of hair whorls, freckles and moles, etc.),can be charted and two pictures can be overlayed for comparison. Since these 2 photos are of about the same vintage of the subject, it should be easy. I learned that age, illness, weight gain, and many other factors can alter facial markers-but that is not the case here. Intuition and hunches can pay off sometimes, but the research I admire the most is the careful, scientific, and unemotional type -executed by one with no particular bias or interest in the subject being examined!

  74. #74
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    I second that...then I would know that a trained expert made the proof. That would be the evidence that would sway my mind at this time. Definition: Hearsay is just word of mouth Inger...not hard evidence such as print in countless books, which at this time have been many as I have checked out even more from a different library. Every book with that photo in it claims the same and that is...the photo is of Phillips and Bride. Next on my list is The Marconi books (if there is any) and anything by Father Francis M. Brown and I was told there is no known books by him. I am scoping everything in print that I could find. I just have to say (sigh) I can't seem to even find anything that differs from the caption of the photo being that of Phillips and Bride. It's everywhere and I can't help but believe that so many books could be wrong.

  75. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    [indent]
    quote:

    Definition: Hearsay is just word of mouth Inger...not hard evidence such as print in countless books
    In this instance, a reputable researcher has reported an opinion conveyed to him by a member of the family. Are you doubting that this information was relayed to Parks by the Bride family? What is more, secondary sources - such as books - are not 'hard' evidence. 'Hard' evidence comes from primary sources. An analysis of the photograph, for example, would be 'hard' evidence, as it centres around a primary source - the photograph itself. The testimony of Bride himself is 'hard' evidence.

    Books are no better than the sources they are based upon. They convey a sense of authority because they are in print, but this can be highly misleading. Would you care to cite these 'countless' books that identify this as Bride? As Dave has pointed out, it is extremely common in Titanic literature for publishers to recycle material from other works without checking their sources first.

    [indent]
    quote:

    Next on my list is The Marconi books (if there is any)
    There are books both about Marconi himself and the development of the company, as a search on-line should reveal. You may want to start with the official Marconi site, MarconiCalling. On it you will find the Adriatic photo of Philips and the other unidentified Marconi under discussion in this thread. Only Philips is identified in the caption to this photo on the Marconi site, as the Marconi researchers who compiled it realised that the other man is not Bride.

    Father Francis M. Brown and I was told there is no known books by him.

    Father Francis Browne was a reknowned photographer, famed for his work even outside the Titanic connection, and compilations of his work in book form have been published widely. Wolfhound Press has a range of titles dealing with his work: These include 'Father Browne's Titanic', 'Father Browne's Ships and Shipping', 'Father Browne's England', 'Father Browne's Australia', 'Father Browne's Cork' etc etc. If you want a primary published source in print, go to 'Father Browne's Titanic'. It is there you will find the original caption - with no mention of Bride at all.

    [indent]
    quote:

    I can't seem to even find anything that differs from the caption of the photo being that of Phillips and Bride. It's everywhere and I can't help but believe that so many books could be wrong.
    I'm assuming that this is a typo and you mean to say that you can't help but believe so many books could be right! You don't need to go very far to find a different caption - no further, in fact than the original caption that Browne gave it! Also check out the official Marconi website. And the Commutator article explaining the erroneous identification. And if you have trouble believing so many books can be wrong...shall I start listing how many books have got the caption wrong on the Titanic's officers? They range from the highly reputable Titanic: An Illustrated History all the way through to dodgy books like Thresh's, and everything in between. It is actually very common for an erroneous caption to be repeated in multiple secondary sources. This is what happens when you don't go back to primary sources - errors get perpetuated. This is what has happened here. If only people had stuck to Father Browne's original caption and not felt the need to embroider, we wouldn't have this confusion today.



  76. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    [indent]
    quote:

    I am angered by the fact that you suggest I be ignored as if the only post that is welcomed here, are those that agree the picture is not of Bride with Phillips having outside on the dock of the Adriatic prior to going out on the Titanic.
    Allison's suggestion has nothing to do with your opinion and everything to do with your manners. Regarding your statement, however - would you care to tell me exactly when you believe this photo was taken of the two men. You say 'prior to going out on Titanic' - when do you propose this was? Are you suggesting that they were on the Adriatic in March 1912? And where do you suggest the Adriatic was when this photo was taken? Please be specific in your response, as this dating and location is crucial to this debate.

  77. #77
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    Well anyone that wants to ignore me can very well do so...but that won't make the curiosity go away about the photo. After all isn't that why this post is here in the first place? I am the seeker of the truth and want to put this to rest as anyone else does but will not excuse it away without really knowing any different than what I see in the photo or through the countless books that I have already researched for the answer to this question. I am angered by the fact that you suggest I be ignored as if the only post that is welcomed here, are those that agree the picture is not of Bride with Phillips outside on the dock of the Adriatic prior to going out on the Titanic.

  78. #78
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    Inger...The books state that the photo was taken on the dock of the Adriatic after the two signed on to go on the maiden voyage of the Titanic. It doesn't state they were working on the ship or that were even on the ship but just that they took the photo together on the dock.

  79. #79
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    Yes they were Marconi operators but still working through The White Star Line.

  80. #80
    Timothy Brandsoy
    Guest
    Lucky,
    As it's been pointed out, many books are just rehashing old information from other books. I doubt there was an intent to deceive, but why reinvent the wheel? That's how this
    (mis)information gets propagated. If it's good enough for Eaton & Haas.........it must be true!

    Kristina,

    There was an excellent program on PBS (see TV Titanic thread) about just that! A forensic investigator compared the earlobes of two people on Titanic. One was a photo from the morgue of an unknown victim, the other was a then recent photo of a passenger who hadn't been recovered.
    They didn't match.
    As he said "earlobes don't lie!", one was a very definite lobe the other was smooth into the jaw. There was a passing resemblance too. They WANTED it to be him, but alas it wasn't.

    Tim B
    http://hometown.aol.com/timbrands/Cougar.html

  81. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    716
    Lucky, as you can see, Inger is a step ahead of you, and in more ways than one. If she can quote from your latest, and in doing so, address the weaknesses in the thrust of your argument *before* you posted them (as she has just demonstrated) you must surely recognise the need to exit stage left, and fast? You may have countless books at your disposal, but you can't trump psychic powers, surely?

    (Note: if Lucky deletes her post of 16 July, 2003 - 11:43 pm, by comments will be rendered nonsensical and deeply unfunny.)

  82. #82
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    I'm assuming that this is a typo and you mean to say that you can't help but believe so many books could be right!

    Inger don't tell me what I mean to say.

    I said what I meant!

    You put your post up of your views and I will put mine. I don't accuse you of typo's and what you must mean. It appears to me that it is you that needs to read the post guidelines.

    Don't accuse me of disrespect and then disrespect me.

    You now seem to have an annoying habit of (copy and paste syndrome) with every one of my post to make sure you criticize any and all that I say here.

    I'd say you are indeed attacking my views without a doubt and getting more obnoxious about it with every reply.

  83. #83
    Lucky Forte
    Guest
    I don't feel the need to exit the stage as you put it Ben. This post started with "What I Think"?
    That is what I think! The same people can keep on attacking me and adding more just to take the side of some others...I stand tall and proud. In this life there are many things that will be presumed and just because I dare to disagree without any believable proof presented to me other than what I have already researched does not make me an outcast, it just makes me need better proof on the subject. Psychic powers are now the proof huh? LOL One step ahead? Ahead of what? My belief? I see there is a fan club here and that is all that it seems to be. I'll say it again....based on what I have read in the many books and that there was no proof by comparing earlobes or facial structure...I again say I think it is Bride in the photo with Phillips. I see no website of refference to support otherwise from anyone here.

  84. #84
    Trent Pheifer
    Guest
    Lucky,

    Believe me I would be right on your side supporting you..if I believed any of your arguments. It is not a case of friends ganging up on the new person.(Look at your other thread you posted) This thread is just getting ugly. I think the reason is your flat denial that Bride is not in the picture. I want to compare it to the whole Titanic/Olympic switch...a theory (with no evidence whats so ever) that it happened.

    Shelley to the rescue once again!! Great idea with the forensics!! I saw the same show Tim did and yes its all about the earlobs.

    -Trent

  85. #85
    Timothy Brandsoy
    Guest
    I was fooling around with Corel Photo, and in my personal opinion it can't be the same person. I flipped Bride's 'usual' pic, resized it, angled it and made an overlay. The ears don't line up, the ratios of eyes/nose/mouth are wrong and his head is too wide (all else being the same).

    How do I upload a photo? I tried!

  86. #86
    Melissa E. Kalson
    Guest
    Hi Inger..
    I just wanted to put my opinion in here. I have seen the photo in question. From the rare photos I've seen of Bride, I don't believe that it is him. BTW, you and Parks are just super researchers and have given to this community so much more knowledge and have enriched us all. We have all been blessed by this. And just one other note.. I did read your article about the Olympic/Titanic officers in the photo in the Titanic Commutator (a couple of years ago) and was surprised to learn that. As I had been under the mistaken belief that they were the officers of the Titanic. Your research into that was superb. Once again thanks to you, Parks, and all the other great Titanic researchers. Hats off and God bless you all. Sincerely, Melissa K.

  87. #87
    Timothy Brandsoy
    Guest
    I draw and paint and have done a few portraits over the years. I like to work from photographs usually. Sittings are a pain. While I'll admit people can look very different from photo to photo their basic "map" doesn't change.

    As I mentioned i did an overlap of the two photos. When I flipped one the now noncorresponding ears are somewhat alike. They both have lobes. But the Adriatic "Bride" has ears that extend further out at the bottom. The Titanic Bride's ears are more tapered.

    But as I said the photo was flipped, so I'd need an ear to ear to compare.


    Basic question: How tall were Bride and Phillips?

  88. #88
    Susan Leighton
    Guest
    One of the more important rules of membership to this forum is that we use our REAL names. Is "Lucky Forte" a REAL name? Did his Mama name him Lucky?
    This individual is NOT following the general directives of this exclusive message board and the foolish fodder displayed in his posts should be stopped.
    ....'going to a library', and 'scoping everything in print', and 'based on everything I have read in many books' does NOT count as research. To suggest that an opinion can be reached based on the books one has read is comical,if not down right ludicrous. 'Lucky' has done NO research.

    I don't think I have ever seen an interview on The History Channel from the likes of 'Lucky Forte'...but I have seen interviews and footnotes from many of the longstanding members of this forum.
    -Susan Y. Leighton

  89. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    393
    "Basic question: How tall were Bride and Phillips?"

    I don't know precisely, but it does look like they were under the 6" mark (again, I could be wrong, I'm just going by the photo of Jack on the Adriatic, and a photo taken of Harold when he returned to England).

    There was a description in the Commutator article about Harold where it was mentioned that he was short in stature. And he himself said in his New York Times interview that he was very small (I take this to be a reference to both his physical frame and his height, based on the context of the words).

  90. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    500
    Timothy...the PBS program you talk about, is it the same one I mentioned in the Titanic Exhibit thread...I boo-booed when I put it there I believe. I still get a bit confused of where to post what but I am learning.

  91. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    [indent]
    quote:

    Inger don't tell me what I mean to say.

    I said what I meant!
    Oh? You really meant to say what you said in your original post, which was this:

    [indent]
    quote:

    I can't help but believe that so many books could be wrong.
    If that is what you really meant to say, and not a typo, then it is a confession that you believe the books are wrong. I simply assumed it was a typo, and you meant to say 'right', because that is what you have been arguing. However, if you want to stick with what your originally posted, which is that you can't help but believe the books are wrong, be my guest.

    [indent]
    quote:

    You now seem to have an annoying habit of (copy and paste syndrome) with every one of my post to make sure you criticize any and all that I say here.
    Actually, I'm doing you the courtesy of taking your arguments seriously and addressing them specifically rather than paraphrasing. It is a common convention on this board to address specific points, and helps keep focused on what people are actually debating rather than an interpretation of each person is saying.

    [indent]
    quote:

    The books state that the photo was taken on the dock of the Adriatic after the two signed on to go on the maiden voyage of the Titanic. It doesn't state they were working on the ship or that were even on the ship but just that they took the photo together on the dock.
    And here's where this theory falls flat on its face. Let's go through this, shall we? The caption claims it was taken on board the Adriatic before the men were transferred to the Titanic.

    Philips was not serving on board the Adriatic prior to his transfer to Titanic - he was on the Oceanic. The Oceanic was sailing out of Southampton at that time, the Adriatic was sailing out of Liverpool. Why, then, would these two men be on the Adriatic? And how do you propose Father Browne coincidently happened to be there to take the photo?

    We can demonstrate that Browne was NOT in Liverpool, as we have quite a detailed record of his movements in getting from Queenstown to Southampton. Have a look at his bio on ET. I'll cite the pertinent section for you here:

    [indent]
    quote:

    In 1911 he began his theological studies at Milltown Park, Dublin. The year after, his uncle Robert bought him a ticket for a trip on the Titanic: from Southampton to Queenstown. On 4 April he received his first class ticket (No. 84, 4) as a cross channel passenger from White Star Agent James Scott & Co., Queenstown. To reach Southampton he travelled via Holyhead to London on 8 April. He probably spent the night on the train and the following one at his brother's, Dr. James Browne, an eye specialist, in London. On 10 April he left London at 9.45 am (according to other passengers at 8.0 am) on the "Titanic Special" to Southampton from Waterloo station. This train arrived at 11.30 am at Southampton.
    So there's your proof: Father Browne was not in Liverpool to somehow miraculously capture Bride and Philips together on the deck of the Adriatic (a ship neither was serving aboard anyway).

    Many thanks to those who have contributed in a constructive way to this discussion, and who have responded to the ad hominems Lucky has been throwing in the direction of some of those members, myself included. Your attempts to keep this debate on-track and away from the personal sledging is very much appreciated.











 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •