1910 Renault Automobile

Status
Not open for further replies.
>>The above was said from Day 5 of the U.S. hearing on the site<<

Ahhhh...yes...the U.S. Senate. it figures that they would have missed that one. It could make for some quite funny moments from time to time. An example of that would be an exchange between Lights and Senator Fletcher which went like this:

Senator "Windbag" FLETCHER. "I will get you to state, not only from your actual knowledge of the immediate effect, but also from your experiences as a navigator and seaman, what the effect of that collision was on the ship, beginning with the first effect, the immediate effect; how it listed the ship, if it did; what effect it had then, and what, in your opinion, was the effect on the ship that resulted from that collision."

Mr. LIGHTOLLER. The result was she sank.

(Budda Boom! TSSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!!)

In fairness, some of the questions posed weren't quite as assinine as they might appear at first blush. The question about whether anyone could still be trapped alive within air pockets in watertight compartments is an example. Senator Smith knew better but the constituants (As in the people whose vote he wanted) didn't, so the question was posed to put that one to rest.
 

Matt Pereira

Former Member
Well ive only got up to day 5 of the us hearings, ive been going through them day by day and i noticed that foul up and was wondering what in the hell is going on asking fleet if the berg impaced the port side and he replied with yes. But in keeping his mouth shut and just keeping his answers to a bare min would protect him from self incrimination by just saying yes.
 
>>But in keeping his mouth shut and just keeping his answers to a bare min would protect him from self incrimination by just saying yes.<<

That's about the size of it. Nothing has changed much since then. When accidents happen, the lawyers move in and "truth" is seldom what they're interested in.
 

Matt Pereira

Former Member
Yep, Only thing is I hope this testmony when I start reading day 6 and the following days, dont have alot of this, will make for a more complicated grasping of what they really saw but still cant beat going to the source hearing how they perceived what happened and went on.
 
>>Yep, Only thing is I hope this testmony when I start reading day 6 and the following days, dont have alot of this,<<

Don't count on it. At least not when reading any crew testimony and especially anything from the people on watch at the time of the accident. They were the ones in the position to know things that would be quite damaging, but they were also the ones who made the most attractive targets for scapegoating.
 

Matt Pereira

Former Member
When you get the chance to Michael go check out the Photographic Evidence section i made a post there cause i found some very interesting photos in Titanic & her sisters book that list them both as titanic or both as olympic but their not 100% the same. Like the Cafe parisien it says both photos are of titanic but they are very different structually.
 
"Titanic And Her Sisters Olympic and Britannic" needs to be read with care. I have a copy myself. While the text and the historical work is decent, whoever gathered together the photos didn't bother with some elementary fact checking to get the captioning right, and the result was a list of embarrassing mistakes.

Hell, I saw one photo of what was obviously the Aquitania in her hospital ship livery which was captioned as being the Britannic.
 

Matt Pereira

Former Member
lmao well go to that post i made i didnt post the pictures cause they would be taken down for copyright violations but i listed the page and which picture, i talked about a few of the pictures including the smoking room, and the cafe in the book
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top