S
Senan Molony
Member
>>"Did Senan know of this letter
before he wrote the article? [almost certainly - its the next page in the file! - PL] Plenty of food for thought! ... You've surprised me!"<<
Actually I did not know of this letter before I wrote the article.
I can't why I would have missed it, had it been the next page in the file. I would instead have photographed it.
I will certainly have to go and look for it next time I am in Liverpool and have the opportunity. (Not the forthcoming BTS convention, unfortunately.)
But I don't see that it contradicts Rowe's 1963 statement that he did not adjust his watch. In fact it does not do that.
And the questions, without being sidetracked, give Rowe the opportunity to make any contradiction or re-contradiction he wants.
Meanwhile there are about five or six arguments adduced in my article from the Inquiry evidence and a priori from common sense as to why Rowe would not have adjusted his watch.
Rowe's 1963 declaration that he did not is merely confirmatory of what would be an inherently unlikely thing to do. We see that Bright was alongside him "for some moments" before a lifeboat was reported in the water.
Separately, If I missed a letter in the file, the question equally redounds as to whether Rowe's reported stout denial of a theory advanced in modern times by George Behe was seen and ignored?
Or missed?
I can't answer that. But I can clarify what Jim said about a nasty and appally act by one ET member in "accusing him of illegally reproducing images, for which he had actually obtained formal permission to use..."
Actually I had full prior permission to photograph material, and then I obtained permission to reproduce documents in the Rowe file that are the actual copyright of the MMSA successor organisation, Nautilus.
I know the person who granted that permission, I have his documentary express grant, and I know that he has not subsequently made any other grant.
I mention that by the by, given the deep irony of the complaint made to MMM and Paul Lee's failure to respond to a private email I subsequently sent to him about that affair. I should say I have a long standing connection with person/s to whom the spiteful complaint was made.
There's a right of reply on that right here.
But you see, Jim, the photographs I used in a previous article were in my own copyright. The MMM checked theirs, and none of theirs were used, contrary to what was alleged, so it is not true to say that I had permission to reproduce theirs.
In fact none of theirs were reproduced by me.
BTW, a full article on the 1h33 time difference cited by Titanic officers in evidence in 1912 and transmitted by the Carpathia, is in the new issues of Voyage and the Atlantic Daily Bulletin.
Furthermore all images in my forthcoming book are copyright cleared, and no doubt those who are so hot on such issues will have seen fit to sort out their own affairs, even if the image reproduced on this thread is in the copyright ownership of Nautilus with no evidence of clearance. How does one spell hypocrisy?
Finally I say again that there is no good evidence to support a 12.45am first lifeboat departure time.
I will be lecturing in Liverpool on this point next month. [Deleted. MAB]
before he wrote the article? [almost certainly - its the next page in the file! - PL] Plenty of food for thought! ... You've surprised me!"<<
Actually I did not know of this letter before I wrote the article.
I can't why I would have missed it, had it been the next page in the file. I would instead have photographed it.
I will certainly have to go and look for it next time I am in Liverpool and have the opportunity. (Not the forthcoming BTS convention, unfortunately.)
But I don't see that it contradicts Rowe's 1963 statement that he did not adjust his watch. In fact it does not do that.
And the questions, without being sidetracked, give Rowe the opportunity to make any contradiction or re-contradiction he wants.
Meanwhile there are about five or six arguments adduced in my article from the Inquiry evidence and a priori from common sense as to why Rowe would not have adjusted his watch.
Rowe's 1963 declaration that he did not is merely confirmatory of what would be an inherently unlikely thing to do. We see that Bright was alongside him "for some moments" before a lifeboat was reported in the water.
Separately, If I missed a letter in the file, the question equally redounds as to whether Rowe's reported stout denial of a theory advanced in modern times by George Behe was seen and ignored?
Or missed?
I can't answer that. But I can clarify what Jim said about a nasty and appally act by one ET member in "accusing him of illegally reproducing images, for which he had actually obtained formal permission to use..."
Actually I had full prior permission to photograph material, and then I obtained permission to reproduce documents in the Rowe file that are the actual copyright of the MMSA successor organisation, Nautilus.
I know the person who granted that permission, I have his documentary express grant, and I know that he has not subsequently made any other grant.
I mention that by the by, given the deep irony of the complaint made to MMM and Paul Lee's failure to respond to a private email I subsequently sent to him about that affair. I should say I have a long standing connection with person/s to whom the spiteful complaint was made.
There's a right of reply on that right here.
But you see, Jim, the photographs I used in a previous article were in my own copyright. The MMM checked theirs, and none of theirs were used, contrary to what was alleged, so it is not true to say that I had permission to reproduce theirs.
In fact none of theirs were reproduced by me.
BTW, a full article on the 1h33 time difference cited by Titanic officers in evidence in 1912 and transmitted by the Carpathia, is in the new issues of Voyage and the Atlantic Daily Bulletin.
Furthermore all images in my forthcoming book are copyright cleared, and no doubt those who are so hot on such issues will have seen fit to sort out their own affairs, even if the image reproduced on this thread is in the copyright ownership of Nautilus with no evidence of clearance. How does one spell hypocrisy?
Finally I say again that there is no good evidence to support a 12.45am first lifeboat departure time.
I will be lecturing in Liverpool on this point next month. [Deleted. MAB]
