Search titles only
Search titles only
Search titles only
Search titles only
Install the app
New media comments
Reply to thread
New On ET
ET Research Articles and Features
Articles on Technical Matters
Chronology - Sinking of the Titanic
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
[QUOTE="George Jacub, post: 58906, member: 146421"] Gentlemen....I didn't expect such a response so quickly, although the opening insult was sadly predictable. It seems you're troubled by my adoption of the 1 hour 33 minute time difference between New York and Titanic time. Rest assured I have read the threads on ET and elsewhere on the Web discussing the time differential, and none of the arguments for a different time are convincing, particularly when they enter a dark forest of set-back clocks and what "was probably discussed" and who "must have somehow (been) mistaken" about something or other. I avoid speculation whenever possible. As I stated at the beginning of my articles, I start with the eyewitness evidence of survivors. In this case, from the American Inquiry: Senator SMITH. Mr. Boxhall, you seem to be the one upon whom we must rely to give the difference between ship's time and New York time; or, rather, to give ship's time and give the New York time when this accident occurred. Mr. BOXHALL. At 11.46 p.m., ship's time, it was 10.13 Washington time, or New York time. I'm beginning to suspect none of you know how a public inquiry is conducted. Before a witness is called into open session, he is questioned by Inquiry counsel and his evidence is taken in private. The Senators (in this example) knew exactly what everyone was going to say before each witness set a foot in the inquiry room. Witnesses are called to give specific evidence in public, which can then be used in the final report. In this case, Boxhall was, we can gather from the set-up to Smith's question ("you seem to be the one"), called to give the time difference among other salient points. The inquiry lawyers would have elicited that information first, questioned Boxhall on how he arrived at that number, then satisfied themselves that the evidence was accurate. That's how it's done and there's no reason it was done any differently in 1912. The final test was to overlay the wireless messages on a 1:33 template over the other available evidence. It fit perfectly. If you have another time in mind, do the same exercise and see what results you arrive at. What next? The order to load the boats came not at 12:25. That is evident from the minute-by-minute breakdown of evidence from survivors. The order to clear the lifeboats came 10 to 15 minutes after the collision; it took 15-20 minutes to do the job; then Lightoller got the order from the Captain to load the boats. 12:10 give or take. Reread the evidence of the men who did the job. The orders regarding the lifeboats were given to the sailors and officers. There were plenty of first class passengers waiting to board the lifeboats when the order came. The stewards were then told to get the passengers still below to the boat deck. When a steward got the order is no proof of when the officers did. "it can be established that the first CQD went out around the same time, once the Captain learned the news." Please cite your sources for this statement. And, yes, I have read the Revised Titanic Lifeboat Launching Sequence. And if it isn't clear yet, I reject much of it, starting with the cornerstone that the port boats (16 and 14 at the very least) were launched before any of the rear starboard boats. Tad, you wrote: "the flaws in your conclusions here were pointed out, but you have chosen to ignore them." The only flaw was that my conclusions did not agree with yours. In a nutshell, I say the evidence shows that after lowering Lifeboats #9 and #11 to the ocean, and #13 off the boat deck, Murdoch went to the port side of the ship where the port boats had still not been launched. Beesley sees him leave the starboard side and Crowe sees him at #14. You insisted that Crowe could not be believed because nobody corroborated Murdoch's presence at #14. But you knew full well, as was admitted later, that Mrs. Collyer, who went off in #14, mentioned Murdoch. Your failure to acknowledge you knew of her, regardless of whether you believe her or not, was clearly an attempt to deceive me into believing there was no corroboration of Crowe. Now, you raise the same arguments again. 'Crowe didn't identify Murdoch,' you say. What part of his mention of the name "Murdoch" do you find confusing? Nobody else came forward to say he saw Murdoch. If you insist on two witnesses, then I insist there be no double standard; who else saw McGough at #14 beside Scarrott? Nobody? Collyer's account was "heavily ghostwritten." Proof please. "She claims to have seen Lowe arguing with Ismay." Nowhere does she say that. She saw Lowe order a man in plain clothes away from the lifeboat. The ship was filled with civilian men in plain clothes. She says she read in the newspaper that it was Ismay, except that Ismay was never at the port boats, so she jumped to a conclusion. "Again, for emphasis, Collyer's account *does not* say, nor indicate in any way that Murdoch was at No. 14." Again, let's go over her evidence on that. It can be summed up in a single paragraph. "The lowering of the second boat took more time. I think all those women who were really afraid and eager to go had got into the first. Those who remained were wives who did not want to leave their husbands, or daughters who would not leave their parents. The Officer in charge was Harold Lowe. First Officer Murdock (sic) had moved to the other end of the deck. I was never close to him again." One paragraph. Six sentences. The first four sentences can be grouped together and the other two can also. She is clearly talking about No. 14, where "the officer in charge was Harold Lowe." Are you saying that the next two sentences are non-sequiter, that she suddenly changed the subject and started talking about Murdoch for no reason? Of course not. Her reference to Murdoch is fully in the context of No. 14. He "had moved to the other end of the deck." From where? From her end of the deck. And where was that? At No. 14. But most astonishing of all, nobody has challenged the evidence of Greaser Frederick Scott who picked up the story right where Mrs. Collyer left off, with Lowe in command of No. 14. "There were two boats left then on the port side; lowered down to the ship's side they were then. 5648. Were there any on the starboard side? - No. 5649. Let us see if we can get this quite clearly. Did you look over the starboard side? - Yes, we went to the starboard side first." **** "I'm rewriting the canon on my blog..." You ain't seen nothin' yet. [/QUOTE]
I which year did the Titanic sail?