2nd Officer Stone's Interrogation.

Mar 22, 2003
5,385
755
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Man, the things you’ll invent to try to make your theory hold together. We have now officially passed from the plausible into fantasy. This is where I stop indulging you and exit this thread. It’s been real. Good luck Sam!
Bob, I have to agree with you. This nonsense has gone far enough, with issues being repeated and repeated, again and again, with the same results.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
980
452
73
South Wales UK
The Californian's Official Logbook noted that they proceeded on course at 11-20 am on the morning of April 15. That entry would be made as soon as Lord rang Full Ahead after clearing the ice.
Hi Jim,

I can't agree with the above.

Stewart, British Inquiry, quoting from the Ships Log:-

8825. According to your log, you proceeded on your course at 11.20?
- Yes.


8828. And between 11.20 and noon you say you traveled some four or five miles?
- Yes.

8829. Were you encountering ice at the time?
- Yes.


Cheers,

Julian
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,989
616
183
Funchal. Madeira
Bob, I have to agree with you. This nonsense has gone far enough, with issues being repeated and repeated, again and again, with the same results.

Would the nonsense you refer to be this bit of "what if"? "What if an interested captain said: “I know what you are telling me but it does’t make sense. Why would a ship fire distress rockets then sail away? We may not find anything but we can’t assume that there won’t be anything to find in a situation where multiple distress rockets were launched. Order the Marconi operator see what he can find out and we will be immediately heading in the direction of the rockets you reported.”
Or perhaps it was my nonsensical reply to the foregoing bit of nonsense? Whatever...I and am sure others are puzzled since you seem to agree with the author of the first bit.

The results will always be the same if you pursue your incorrigible approach, Sam. Surely by now, you have come to realise that it is not enough to simply "rubbish" or declare "nonsense" any view or idea that does not fit with your view of a situation?

As for nonsense?

Here is some of it in all its glory. This is what you are promoting and sensible people are being asked to believe.

1. Experienced sailors were in two vessels stopped in sight of each other. One could not tell the difference between an approaching ship and a stationary one.
2. Experienced sailors could not tell the difference between the biggest passenger ship in the world and a cargo vessel half its size.
3. Experienced sailors in two ships in sight of each other could not determine with a mile or two how many miles separated them.
4. Experiences sailors in two ships in sight of each other were signaling by powerful light to each other yet not one saw the other's signaling light but both saw the other's coloured side lights.
5. Experience sailors in a ship did not see a ship which was no more than 12 to 15 miles away, fire a rocket which did not rise above their visible horizon.
6. A ship moving at 22.5 knots was turned hard left toward the south and at the same time, her engines were stopped. There was no immediate hard right helm order, yet that ship managed to end up pointing to the north.
7. The muzzle flash of a 2-inch shell-like projectile fired from the far away, blind side of a vessel was seen with the naked eye at a distance greater than 16 miles.
8. Many people on a sinking vessel and later in lifeboats saw a single white stern light from a nearby vessel yet that nearby vessel never showed her white stern light in their direction until long after their vessel sank.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
980
452
73
South Wales UK
Stewart is quite interesting. His British Inquiry testimony is very interesting because of a number of points. One large chunk of his wreck commissioner's statement is quoted back at him, so we have a snapshot of Stewart departing from his statement made only a few days previously, and one must ask why? (8604 - 8613)

Stewart gets a hard time then settles down in the witness box, abandoning his earlier tactics, to some extent.

8911 is interesting

8911. When did you first hear that the "Titanic" had sunk?
- When I went to the Marconi House.

(An incredible 'gaff' by Dunlop)

Note no correction by Stewart of "sunk", and again no correction of "sunk" in the next question by Dunlop.

Stewart confirms that Stone reported 'rockets' (plural) to Captain Lord (8617) corroborating Stone's testimony and Stone's 18th April statement.

Stewart further goes on to confirm that Captain Lord agrees with this... "Oh yes I know" (8618), and "Yes, I know, he has been telling me" (8619)

Note no mention whatsoever of Captain Lord saying to Stewart "Stone only told me of ONE rocket".

Going back to my timeline which I attempted towards the start of this thread I have always been bemused by Evans stating at the British Inquiry he was woken up by Stewart at 5.40am ships time and heard the first message in reply from The Mount Temple at 5.45am (9056) (9088/9) or 3.40 or 3.45 NYT .

Durrant on The Mount Temple recorded with his usual precision The Californian's first wireless message that morning as 3.25 NYT; 5.11am ships time Mount Temple, 5.15am ships time The Californian.

Evans says Stewart was with him in the Marconi room on The Californian at the time (9085), and the ship was not moving and did not move for another 10 minutes or quarter of an hour (9162/3), yet Stewart (and Captain Lord) say The Californian started to move at 5.15am. If It took Evans 5 minutes to get up and tap out his CQ and get a response from Durrant (Evans' estimate), then Stewart must have woken up Evans at around 5.10am, and stayed for 5 minutes or so.

Going back to this thread, Evans also corroborates Stone that Stewart told him of plural rockets been reported to him by Stone:-

(9059) (Stewart to Evans) "There's a ship been firing rockets [plural]. Will you see if you can find out whether there is anything the matter?"

Groves also confirms Stone told him he had seen rockets [plural] when they were woken up by Stewart around 6.40am.

I think this has been a good informative thread, with much discussed and debated that is highly relevant, and which would otherwise not have been discussed without Jim playing 'devils advocate'.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,989
616
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Jim,

I can't agree with the above.

Stewart, British Inquiry, quoting from the Ships Log:-

8825. According to your log, you proceeded on your course at 11.20?
- Yes.


8828. And between 11.20 and noon you say you traveled some four or five miles?
- Yes.

8829. Were you encountering ice at the time?
- Yes.


Cheers,

Julian
Hello Julian.

"Encountering ice" has two possibilities. Keep in mind that the ice barrier was just that, a barrier of closely packed ice. However, there was not a clean-cut division between ice and ice-free water. You will remember that Californian was surrounded by light field ice but the hard stuff was half a mile to the south. In fact, Californian was in ice ic concentrations of differing density most of the time. This from her Ice Report to the US HO:
"At 10:20 P.M., latitude 42.05 N., longitude 50.07 W., encountered heavy packed field ice, extending north and south as far as the eye could see and about 5 miles wide; also numerous bergs could be seen. From above position until April 15, 2:30 P.M., latitude 41.33 N., longitude 50.42 W., almost continuously in field ice. At the last position sighted two bergs and cleared the field ice." From above position until April 15, 2:30 P.M., latitude 41.33 N., longitude 50.42 W., almost continuously in field ice. At the last position sighted two bergs and cleared the field ice."

If we analyse the above:

1, Lord had no idea as to the extent of the ice at 10-20 pm it was too dark to see.
2. In the morning, he transited heavy pack ice for 1 or 2 miles before clearing into less packed stuff on the west side.
3. The Californian did not clear the ice field until she had been full away on passage for 3 hours and 10 minutes.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
247
14
18
Usa
1. Experienced sailors were in two vessels stopped in sight of each other. One could not tell the difference between an approaching ship and a stationary one
Mr. Boxhall testified that the ship was approaching.
Mr. Lightoller testified that the same ship was stationary.
They both are experienced Mariners.

2. Experienced sailors could not tell the difference between the biggest passenger ship in the world and a cargo vessel half its size.
Groves could.
7. The muzzle flash of a 2-inch shell-like projectile fired from the far away, blind side of a vessel was seen with the naked eye at a distance greater than 16 miles.
8. Many people on a sinking vessel and later in lifeboats saw a single white stern light from a nearby vessel yet that nearby vessel never showed her white stern light in their direction until long after their vessel sank.
Not sure what muzzle flash are you talking about.
Don’t understand #8. Could you please clarify it.
5. Experience sailors in a ship did not see a ship which was no more than 12 to 15 miles away, fire a rocket which did not rise above their visible horizon.
Could you please clarify this also.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,989
616
183
Funchal. Madeira
[
Mr. Boxhall testified that the ship was approaching.
Mr. Lightoller testified that the same ship was stationary.
They both are experienced Mariners.


Groves could.

Not sure what muzzle flash are you talking about.
Don’t understand #8. Could you please clarify it.

Could you please clarify this also.
Hello Alex.

Lightoller was preparing boats as the mystery vessel approached. He did not see it until it was much nearer.

You must discount the mystery vessel evidence of Groves. He described seeing a vessel approaching Californian from the south, not eastward as would have been the case if that vessel had been Titanic. He may well have seen a passenger ship, but it was most certainly not Titanic. Anyone who says it was is delusional.

Many people did see a white light before Titanic sank, but that white light could not have been Californian.
If those on Californian could see coloured lights and accommodation lights on the nearby vessel then those on that vessel could see Californian's lights. From the moment the nearby vessel stopped until just after the last signal was fired by Californian, the latter was showing 2 white masthead lights, a green side light and several accommodation lights. From just after the second last signal was fired until the nearby vessel disappeared, Californian was showing 2 white masthead lights, a red sidelight and several white accommodation lights in the disappearing ship's direction. At no time did she show a single white light while the other vessel was in sight.

Apprentice Gibson said he saw a flash apparently on the nearby vessel's deck.

Titanic was not firing conventional rockets but small 2 inch x 9 inch shells from a socket with an enclosed bottom end - much like the barrel of a gun. The only light from the ignition of such a projectile would be from the open end of the socket...a muzzle-flash if you like. In fact, the manufacturers of the socket signal emphasised this quality of their product, I quote: "requires no stick, gives no back fire."
These projectiles were fired from a position on the top of the bulwark rail, immediately behind the starboard wing cab. If the nearby vessel seen from Titanic was about 2 points in the port bow when the last three signals were being fired, then the muzzle flash of such a small socket would have been completely masked from an observer by the starboard wing cab and foremast of Titanic. Not only that, but Titanic would have been lit up like a Xmas tree and any reflected light from such a flash would have been hard to see at 5 miles and invisible at 12 miles.

At 3-30 or thereabouts. Gibson and Stone saw the flashes of signal detonations right on the horizon. It is generally accepted that these were the "comfort" rockets being sent up by the Carpathia, which, at that time would have been about 8 miles SE of Boxhall in boat 2.
If the mystery vessel seen earlier had been 4 miles away, then Carpathia would have been about 12 miles from Californian at 3-30 am.
If so, and she was firing conventional rockets, then there is no way they would have been seen on the horizon. in fact, Carpathia herself, would have been visible to Stone and Gibson as she was firing these final rockets. She was not. Nor could she had been visibe to them at 4 am, half an hour later. Otherwise, Stone and Gibson would have seen every single green signal shown by Boxhall.

Talking of green signal... consider this.
If Stone and Gibson did not see Boxhall's green flares from boat 2, then they were at least as far or farther away from him than Carpathia was when captain Rostron first saw them. Rostron saw them at 2-40 am when about 20 miles away from Boxhall
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
980
452
73
South Wales UK
If Stone and Gibson did not see Boxhall's green flares from boat 2, then they were at least as far or farther away from him than Carpathia was when captain Rostron first saw them. Rostron saw them at 2-40 am when about 20 miles away from Boxhall
Hi Jim,

You know full well that Rostron's 2.40am timing is wrong. This been conclusively proved in recent years.

The 11.20am you claim for The Californian clearing the ice field on the western side that morning of the 15th April is a perverse conclusion of the evidence, and of Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit where he states "At about 11.20am, I abandoned the search and proceeded due west (true) through the ice, clearing same about 11.50am".

Cheers,

Julian
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
247
14
18
Usa
Lightoller was preparing boats as the mystery vessel approached. He did not see it until it was much nearer.
Something doesn't add up. If he saw it, when it was much nearer, why did he see only one light. Why didn't he see two masthead lights and a sidelight as some others did?
It is interesting to know how many degrees is the separation between masthead lights and the port sidelight for different positions.
Do you have some images that illustrate this?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,989
616
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Jim,

You know full well that Rostron's 2.40am timing is wrong. This been conclusively proved in recent years.

The 11.20am you claim for The Californian clearing the ice field on the western side that morning of the 15th April is a perverse conclusion of the evidence, and of Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit where he states "At about 11.20am, I abandoned the search and proceeded due west (true) through the ice, clearing same about 11.50am".

Cheers,

Julian
No, I do not know anything "full well" Julian nor do any of us. That's why we are having this debate. However, I'll tell you what I do know full well regarding visibility of lights at night in mid-ocean.

The distance between two fixed objects at sea is found by multiplying the square root of their combined heights above sea level by 1.5. However, this only holds good if the air temperature is 50F (10C) and the barometer shows 29.56 inches(1002.4 millibars).
When the air temperature drops, to near to zero and the barometer is high as it was during the Titanic disaster, that formula is useless and objects are visible for another 3.25 degrees below the normal horizon. (crudely speaking). In this instance, lights will be seen at a much greater distance. That is where the band-wagoners fall off the wagon. They have made their calculations using standard tables and formula. They also assume that when Rostron used the "Royal I" as in "At 2:40, I saw a flare,".
It is hard to imagine that since everyone on Carpathia were staring in the same direct, Rostron's Lookout was not the first to spot the green light/ He was located about 85 feet above the sea, and his horizon under normal circumstances would have been 10.6 miles away. By the same token, if Boxhall was standing at the same position as was 5th Officer Lowe in the famous photograph of boat 14 arriving at Carpathia...and Boxhall had his arm raised above his head holding the green pyrotechnic, then the source of his light had a normal horizon of about 5 miles. Thus, the distance between the eyes of the lookout in the crow's nest on Carpathia and the top of Boxhall's hand-held flare container was 15.6 miles. However, it gets complicated. The foregoing is only true for standard temperature 10C and barometric pressure. 1002.4 mb. That night, there was "much refraction". as Tim Malton discovered. In fact, as I point out, because of the low temperature and high barometer, objects were being seen 3.25 degrees beyond the normal horizon. Because of this, you can safely add at least, couple or three more miles to the visibility range. So 19 miles between Carpathia and Boxhall and a time of 2-40am is not too far off the mark.
Add to this, the fact that a flare creates a very large aura which would reach well above Boxhall and those in the lifeboat. The aura would be seen as a bright glow well above the horizon, even it the actual ignition point was not. Thus, the aura would be seen at an even greater distance than the actual pin-point of the light source.

What I said concerning the 11-20 "Full Away" statement by Lord is not a perversion but an interpretation of the evidence based on practice. Here is a fact: no Master in his right mind would set a course before crossing an ice barrier which was 5 miles wide. He would do so when he had cleared it and was confident he could maintain it. On the other hand, if the barrier was a mere mile or two miles at most, wide, he would do so.
Californian was at 50-09'West at Noon that day and at 42-W 2.5 hours later. That means she averaged just under 10 knots. If she set her course at 11-40 am then she travelled a distance of about 6 miles from 11-40 am until Noon then she was at or near to 50-01'W when she set that course.
However, Captain Lord said that he went through the ice toward Carpathia at full speed but came back slow. This was a repetition of his transit at 6 am that morning. At that time, it took him half an hour to cover a distance of 3 miles. This suggests it would have taken him 50 minutes to cross 5 miles at the same slow speed. Now here we have a problem.
If Californian started across a 5-mile stretch at 11-20 am, she would clear the western side of it at 12 minutes past Noon. This means she would be in the middle of the heavy pack barrier at Noon that day in longitude 9' West which is total nonsense.
However, if Californian crossed 2 miles of ice barrier at Slow, it would have taken her 20 minutes and she would have been close to 50-02.7'W. This would give just under 5 miles to run at Full speed until Noon. Chief officer Stewart seems to have had the same idea:
"8824. How many miles had you travelled between the time [11-20am]you proceeded on your course and when you took this position?
- About four or five miles.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,989
616
183
Funchal. Madeira
Something doesn't add up. If he saw it, when it was much nearer, why did he see only one light. Why didn't he see two masthead lights and a sidelight as some others did?
It is interesting to know how many degrees is the separation between masthead lights and the port sidelight for different positions.
Do you have some images that illustrate this?
He didn't see a masthead light at all, Alex. On a power-driven vessel. you cannot see a masthead light by itself...only in company with a red or greed sidelight. The only single white navigation light you can see on a power-driven vessel is the stern light.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
980
452
73
South Wales UK
Hi Alex,

I am encountering great difficulty in going back through the archives on this forum at the moment, but somewhere is a most important post by one of the Davids on all the Carpathia rescue 'run'.

It is quoted by Eric L Clements in his biography of Rostron in an appendix in "Captain of the Carpathia: The seafaring life of Titanic hero Sir Arthur Rostron". Newport Central Library (South Wales) has a copy so I will endeavour to borrow it again tomorrow.

Hopefully one of the Davids will see this and might post again on all this. It is very important.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
980
452
73
South Wales UK
All my bookmarked posts don't appear except for a few recent ones. This is particularly annoying as I am a paying member. The 'Stanley Lord Guilty as Charged' thread which I was reliant upon as a very valuable source, now appears to be nonsense, with big gaps.

Cheers,

Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Currie

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
980
452
73
South Wales UK
Hi Alex,

This is subject to many provisos, but from what I can recall of the review of the Carpathia's dash to Boxhall's CQD position, Captain Rostron got his navigation wrong as he ended up heading more eastwards, by chance or luck, or pure poor navigation error, and assumed he was at Boxhall's CQD position at 4am or 4.10am when he picked up Boxhall's lifeboat first. He was actually quite a bit more eastwards and southerly when he picked up Boxhall's lifeboat. His remark that Boxhall's coordinates were "splendid" were shown to be quite wrong when the wreck site was shown to be far off Boxhall's CQD coordinates some 73 or so years later.

From what I can remember (and my memory is poor these days) the argument is that Rostron worked backwards, and got his speed and distance wrong, plus his navigation. He had less distance to steam, hence the unrealistic speed. If you apply the lower speed the Carpathia would/could have been pressed to and the some 10 miles shorter distance you get Captain Rostron seeing Boxhall's lifeboat green flares being seen around 3.10 or so which ties in nicely with the warning recorded on Mount Temple's PV by Durrant of warning of firing rockets to other ships.

It also ties in nicely with Gibson and Stones' 18th April statements of seeing the first of these rockets (that they saw) around 3.20am on the 15th.

There is no way Rostron, or anyone else on the bridge of Carpathia, or in the lookouts, could have seen Boxhall's green flares from the Carpathia at 2.40am as Rostron claimed.

My explanation of all this may be quite faulty as from memory, but I should imagine Sam and others have all the relevant stuff to hand. It is most annoying that my 'old' bookmarked posts no longer appear.

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
247
14
18
Usa
No, I do not know anything "full well" Julian nor do any of us. That's why we are having this debate. However, I'll tell you what I do know full well regarding visibility of lights at night in mid-ocean.

The distance between two fixed objects at sea is found by multiplying the square root of their combined heights above sea level by 1.5. However, this only holds good if the air temperature is 50F (10C) and the barometer shows 29.56 inches(1002.4 millibars).
When the air temperature drops, to near to zero and the barometer is high as it was during the Titanic disaster, that formula is useless and objects are visible for another 3.25 degrees below the normal horizon. (crudely speaking). In this instance, lights will be seen at a much greater distance. That is where the band-wagoners fall off the wagon. They have made their calculations using standard tables and formula. They also assume that when Rostron used the "Royal I" as in "At 2:40, I saw a flare,".
It is hard to imagine that since everyone on Carpathia were staring in the same direct, Rostron's Lookout was not the first to spot the green light/ He was located about 85 feet above the sea, and his horizon under normal circumstances would have been 10.6 miles away. By the same token, if Boxhall was standing at the same position as was 5th Officer Lowe in the famous photograph of boat 14 arriving at Carpathia...and Boxhall had his arm raised above his head holding the green pyrotechnic, then the source of his light had a normal horizon of about 5 miles. Thus, the distance between the eyes of the lookout in the crow's nest on Carpathia and the top of Boxhall's hand-held flare container was 15.6 miles. However, it gets complicated. The foregoing is only true for standard temperature 10C and barometric pressure. 1002.4 mb. That night, there was "much refraction". as Tim Malton discovered. In fact, as I point out, because of the low temperature and high barometer, objects were being seen 3.25 degrees beyond the normal horizon. Because of this, you can safely add at least, couple or three more miles to the visibility range. So 19 miles between Carpathia and Boxhall and a time of 2-40am is not too far off the mark.
Add to this, the fact that a flare creates a very large aura which would reach well above Boxhall and those in the lifeboat. The aura would be seen as a bright glow well above the horizon, even it the actual ignition point was not. Thus, the aura would be seen at an even greater distance than the actual pin-point of the light source.

What I said concerning the 11-20 "Full Away" statement by Lord is not a perversion but an interpretation of the evidence based on practice. Here is a fact: no Master in his right mind would set a course before crossing an ice barrier which was 5 miles wide. He would do so when he had cleared it and was confident he could maintain it. On the other hand, if the barrier was a mere mile or two miles at most, wide, he would do so.
Californian was at 50-09'West at Noon that day and at 42-W 2.5 hours later. That means she averaged just under 10 knots. If she set her course at 11-40 am then she travelled a distance of about 6 miles from 11-40 am until Noon then she was at or near to 50-01'W when she set that course.
However, Captain Lord said that he went through the ice toward Carpathia at full speed but came back slow. This was a repetition of his transit at 6 am that morning. At that time, it took him half an hour to cover a distance of 3 miles. This suggests it would have taken him 50 minutes to cross 5 miles at the same slow speed. Now here we have a problem.
If Californian started across a 5-mile stretch at 11-20 am, she would clear the western side of it at 12 minutes past Noon. This means she would be in the middle of the heavy pack barrier at Noon that day in longitude 9' West which is total nonsense.
However, if Californian crossed 2 miles of ice barrier at Slow, it would have taken her 20 minutes and she would have been close to 50-02.7'W. This would give just under 5 miles to run at Full speed until Noon. Chief officer Stewart seems to have had the same idea:
"8824. How many miles had you travelled between the time [11-20am]you proceeded on your course and when you took this position?
- About four or five miles.
I do not understand how you could tell where was the Californian. If Captain Lord did not know where was the horizon how he was able to calculate his position?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,989
616
183
Funchal. Madeira
All my bookmarked posts don't appear except for a few recent ones. This is particularly annoying as I am a paying member. The 'Stanley Lord Guilty as Charged' thread which I was reliant upon as a very valuable source, now appears to be nonsense, with big gaps.

Cheers,

Julian
Additionally, Lord was never charged with anything.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
247
14
18
Usa
I do not understand how you could tell where was the Californian. If Captain Lord did not know where was the horizon how he was able to calculate his position?
So, maybe that’s it. The Californian’s officers did not realize the horizon was elevated and made an error in the calculating of their position. I wonder for how many miles they were off. Maybe they were just 12 miles away from the Titanic?
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,385
755
273
Chicago, IL, USA
I'm not interested in engaging with you, but when I see you post false information I feel compelled to point out your false claims.
When the air temperature drops, to near to zero and the barometer is high as it was during the Titanic disaster, that formula is useless and objects are visible for another 3.25 degrees below the normal horizon. (crudely speaking).
There are tables that show the correction for non-standard temps and pressures. Your number is highly exaggerated. Crude is an understatement.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,989
616
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Alex,

This is subject to many provisos, but from what I can recall of the review of the Carpathia's dash to Boxhall's CQD position, Captain Rostron got his navigation wrong as he ended up heading more eastwards, by chance or luck, or pure poor navigation error, and assumed he was at Boxhall's CQD position at 4am or 4.10am when he picked up Boxhall's lifeboat first. He was actually quite a bit more eastwards and southerly when he picked up Boxhall's lifeboat. His remark that Boxhall's coordinates were "splendid" were shown to be quite wrong when the wreck site was shown to be far off Boxhall's CQD coordinates some 73 or so years later.

From what I can remember (and my memory is poor these days) the argument is that Rostron worked backwards, and got his speed and distance wrong, plus his navigation. He had less distance to steam, hence the unrealistic speed. If you apply the lower speed the Carpathia would/could have been pressed to and the some 10 miles shorter distance you get Captain Rostron seeing Boxhall's lifeboat green flares being seen around 3.10 or so which ties in nicely with the warning recorded on Mount Temple's PV by Durrant of warning of firing rockets to other ships.

It also ties in nicely with Gibson and Stones' 18th April statements of seeing the first of these rockets (that they saw) around 3.20am on the 15th.



My explanation of all this may be quite faulty as from memory, but I should imagine Sam and others have all the relevant stuff to hand. It is most annoying that my 'old' bookmarked posts no longer appear.

Cheers,

Julian
Hello Julian.

There has been a great deal of intellectual nonsense talked about Carpathia and her rescue dash. However, I will not go into them here. Suffice to say, she was 2 miles south of and 12 + miles west of where she thought she was and arrived there half an hour before Rostron thought he should.

Carpathia's comfort message at 3-11am states very clearly that rockets are already being fired. Rostron would not fire these until he was sure they could be seen from keep in mind that he assumed the ship was still afloat.
You wrote: "There is no way Rostron, or anyone else on the bridge of Carpathia, or in the lookouts, could have seen Boxhall's green flares from the Carpathia at 2.40am as Rostron claimed." Ah! but there most certainly is.
The pundits who pontificated about Rostron's 2-40 am sighting of the green signal made a fundimental error. They forgot or did not know about the enormous variation in refraction due to low temperatures at sea level combined with high barometric pressure. They should read "Geniet: Refraction." In there, and in other sources they will learn:
"The largest influence of refraction is due to high temperature gradients, and these are normally the largest near the ground surface. As the light path is the longest when the light travels over a vast level surface, that situation produces the largest (variation of) refraction. "

There is another bit of nonsense being perpetuated that Gibson and Stone could not see the horizon at 3-30 am that morning. There was no reason for them to see a hard line... just where the sky ended and the sea began and they had very good markers.
"
Lord: “We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm.” “…It was a very strange night; it was hard to define where the sky ended and the water commenced. There was what you call a soft horizon. I was sometimes mistaking the stars low down on the horizon for steamer’s lights.”
Groves: The night was dark, brilliantly clear, with not a breath of wind and the sea showed no sign of movement with the horizon only discernible by the fact that the stars could be seen disappearing below it.”

Here is a little sketch I made using an actual photograph of the sky at midnight:
Flashes in the night..jpg


On the left, you have a vessel abot 4 miles away with a rocket burst above her deck.
At the center, you have a green flare right on the horizon.
On the right, you have a "flash" of a rocket right on the horizon. The horizon is shown as through binoculars.