1245 A Time to Go by Senan Molony

And the least you could, Mr.Baber, is reply to my emails about this rather than deciding for your own what is and isn't suitable for posting.
>>"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.

>>> Come on, it was on the next page! We both perused the same file!

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.

>> Come on! He says that he did not see or think of his watch!

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.

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?

>>> Again, mention of your nemsis Mr.Behe. Do you have a grudge against him? Based on tbe "infamous hoax" explanation you expound, this seems resonable.

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..."

>>> Fair enought, but there are other accusations. Did you attribute the pictures and comments in "The Irish aboard ...." maybe, maybe not. People who don't post here anywhere make me think not, so I can't comment.

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.

>> Like to see it.

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.

>> Oh yes, your pretend "Without prejudice" email, which is invalid unless it was sent by someone without connection to the proceedings in hand. Hence "without prejudice".

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.

>> And probably full of selective evidence, with little in the way of evidence.

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?

>> I don't know. Incidentally, how is copyright applied to photos so old?

Finally I say again that there is no good evidence to support a 12.45am first lifeboat departure time.

>> So you say. I want to see the FULL evidence, without Molony's pretence of the truth.

I will be lecturing in Liverpool on this point next month.

>> I'll be in Southampton. [Deleted. MAB]
Incidentally, how do you explain your pamphlet on the Mount Temple appearing so soon after someone asked on this very board which newspapers the post-Quitzrau allegations appeared in? And how your "A PV Solves a Puzzles" article appeared so very soon after I found out where the Marconi PVs were deposited? Pirated information!?
There are so many sources of Titanic information that I have found since early 1996 but I am wary about sharing them or the source in case they found their way into yet another ET Exclusive research Article.
If Buley said the could see the moons of Neptune, Molony would accept this without question without any analysis, such as "side lights can only be seen within 2 miles only" (Star Trek invisibility shields , anyone?) and that the Californian could only see 8 miles to the horizon (until it was shown that this does not apply to things beyond the horizon - an embarassing backpedal? Not our Molony, oh goodness no! Using what is in the forum, yes! No wonder his books needed reissuing!)
>>>What does Phil Hind say about this? Or is this a Molony only website?

I think people would be a lot more inclined to join what is otherwise a worthwhile discussion if you weren't just so damned nasty.

What surprises me about this debate is why it is causing such activity now when the article appeared in two other journals already... I can hardly claim a scoop on this one!

Senan certainly has been very generous with his submissions and they certainly prompt a lot of debate which is good! But, to answer your question, anyone can submit an article to the site and I'd be delighted to publish it. The fact is that Senan submits articles for publication and you don't. There's not a lot I can do about that.
>>>A shame this good piece of detective work won't be mentioned on the front page as a rebuttal to Detective Molony's work. I've mentioned all this is my book, too!

The front page is for centrepiece articles not for to-and-fro debate. That is the purpose of the message board, therefore this is the ideal location for such a response.

I have had two recent rebuttal pieces touting for a spot on the home page but it is only the place from which debate should be stimulated not carried out.
>>>how your "A PV Solves a Puzzles" article appeared so very soon after I found out where the Marconi PVs were deposited? Pirated information!?

Not really for me to answer but I knew myself that the PVs were in Oxford and since I live here it made sense for me to find out what I could. Although gaining access to them was an interesting experience! When you enter the Bodleian you have to swear an oath never to kindle flame amongst the stack. Needless to say I left the Woodbines at home that day.
For the record, because my interlocutor here appears to be descending into paranoia -

I have never "pirated" anything from him. I don't, frankly, see how I could.

I have no idea what he is driving at in some of his references, but they are pure drivel.

My permissions from Nautilus were most carefully obtained after this individual falsely claimed that I had used MMM copyright pictures.

He does not deny it. I think it a base act... compounded by his own use of 1965 Nautilus copyrighted material on his website for which this paragon has not received clearance!

It's a 1965 document. I don't dispute it's authenticity, but do the math - it remains the property of MMSA, its heirs, successors and assigns, for some decades yet.

I wonder Paul if you would care to report yourself to the MMM in this instance? Or would you recommend that others follow your example?

The document you show is from March 1963. My approved releases (do please complain to Nautilus if you like, but I am not answerable to you) are from May and June 1963.

"Yours" is not a later document as you say, but an earlier one, probably the earliest. We can see that Rowe is somewhat all over the shop in it.

He says first boat and first rocket were at 1pm, but in the later material I provide he says that the first boat was launched "probably near to 12.30am," and that they were firing rockets while he was still on the poop.

In the March document he says he had nothing to do with his watch. That does not mean he adjusted it. How could it? In the May document I provide, he specifically denies that he put back his watch.

In the March document he does not dispute his 1912 testimony that he was called forward at 12.25am after seeing a boat in the water. He then walks forward for ten minutes.

We know Boxhall's evidence that the Fourth Officer was just putting away a lanyard after firing a rocket when he got the call from Rowe on the poop.

So how does Rowe's (from March 1963) appearance upon the bridge with Boxhall at 12.35am square with his claim that the first boat went at 1am and the first rocket fired at 1am also?

That cannot be right. It would mean Titanic waiting one hour and twenty minutes post collision to signal distress for the first time by rocket.

If you seriously want to believe that, be my guest. But it is utterly detached from any reality. It would mean Captain Smith had fully expended his "Golden Hour" without doing anything by way of rockets or launching lifeboats.

By the way, as you refuse to acknowledge (but which narked you in the first place), launched lifeboats have hopelessly low horizons. You mention horizons in your last post... yet there is much, much evidence that the lifeboats still saw the Mystery Ship after launch. Indeed they pulled towards it. That ship was thus very near.

You want to believe she was 15 miles. Again, please be my guest...

By the way, MAB deleted just a line from my last post. It was innocuous - just a suggestion that you could come to that Liverpool lecture and engage in lively debate with me if you wanted.

Meanwhile, if you have the time or inclination, please do tell us why we should think that the first lifeboat should have left at either 12.45 or 1am?
Since George, Tad and I wrote our lifeboat article, we do try to keep up will any alternate ideas of the timings of the lifeboats.

Consequently, we all read Senan's article, did some further research on his points, and were not convinced by it. We found testimony at variance with Senan's theory, in fact, we found even more evidence of a later time.

George, Tad and I will be making some updates to our online lifeboat article in the near future, stating why we do not believe in an earlier time than 12:40. This will also include why we don't accept Rowe's decades later statement that he never set his clock back.

Finally we say again that there is no good evidence to support a 12.25am first lifeboat departure time.
>>we don't accept Rowe's decades later statement that he never set his clock back.<<

Astounding! But, then again, I am not surprised.

The theory prevails over the actual evidence...

Rowe denies, twice, in 1963 that he thought about his watch, or put his watch back.

The idea that he did is formulated in modern times, post 1963.

Otherwise Rowe precisely echoes Pitman as to a lifeboat being in the water at 12.25am or 12.27am, Pitman himself saying his boat, No. 5, left at 12.30am.

I have posted ALL the testimony from the two 1912 Inquiries (some 44 witnesses quoted) bearing on the time of the first lifeboat departure.

Only one person in 1912 (contradicted by his wife, who was in the same boat) says 12.45am.

Bill, you say:

>>We found testimony at variance with Senan's theory, in fact, we found even more evidence of a later time.<<

Please post it!
Incidentally, I love this line:

We found testimony at variance with Senan's theory

No, Bill. I have posted all the 1912 evidence and actual testimony.

You are the ones with the theory.

One denied by the man whose watch you presume to tamper with in 1912. Time travel?
With all due respect, we have evaluated the evidence as presented in your article after it was published in print, and have found considerable evidence contrary to your conclusions, beyond what we already include in our current online article, evidence that further reinforces the later launch time rather than 12:25. Nothing has been rejected simply because it disagrees with our conclusions.

We will objectively be examining the evidence relating to this in depth in the near future. However, recent events on this message board, as your are aware, have made the atmosphere less than conducive to productive discussions on this topic and a few others, so we will be presenting the additional evidence we speak of in the near future in another format. Discussions or rebuttals of evidence are a very good thing for Titanic research, the tone set in this thread is not, and I think we can agree on that point.

All my best,