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="Tad G. Fitch, post: 58908, member: 145275"] Hi George, how are you? You wrote: "I didn't expect such a response so quickly, although the opening insult was sadly predictable." What insult? I see nothing that anybody said in the initial responses that were written as insulting. Why post your research publicly if you are going to get upset or play the victim when people critique it? As far as your insistence that the 1 hour and thirty-three minute time difference is accurate, this does little to instill any confidence in your objectivity, or subsequent chronology or timings, in light of the documented evidence to the contrary, but that is your choice. You wrote: "I'm beginning to suspect none of you know how a public inquiry is conducted." Now who is being insulting? Perhaps you are right, and you are the only researcher in the field of Titanic research who knows how a public inquiry is conducted. But I don't think so. Personally, I think you're really off base, and am willing to bet that Paul, Dave, Sam, Mark and the others who have commented in this thread are equally as versed on how a public inquiry is held as you are, particularly given how long they have been researching this. It is your choice to continue clinging to the 1 hour thirty-three minute time difference, but if you do so without discussing *specific* eyewitness accounts or evidence counter to this as documented by Sam and others, and without providing *specific* evidence to support the 1 hour thirty-three minute time difference, then don't expect anyone to place much stock in your conclusions, which are based on a false premise and flawed from the start. And no, a generic statement from you dismissing Sam's work and others' in this area as a "dark forest of set-back clocks and what "was probably discussed" and who "must have somehow (been) mistaken" about something or other" is not the same as providing specific evidence to support your claims. You wrote: "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." Yes, but the question is not whether Collyer *mentioned* Murdoch in her account. The question is whether she mentioned Murdoch as being involved in the loading of No. 14, as *you* claimed. No matter how you twist it, she says nothing of the sort. You wrote: "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." Again, another false accusation of deception hurled at me. Collyer's account was mentioned by Inger Sheil previously in the thread I linked to ([url="https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/6584/125539.html?1215743713"]https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/6584/125539.html?1215743713[/url]), long before you accused me of lying to you or trying to cover it up later. So giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you knew about this widely-known account after Inger brought it up in one of her posts and you never inquired about it somehow equals deception on our part? Please. As stated in my previous message, all of this can be seen in the previous thread I linked to for those interested. You quote the following portion of Collyer's account: "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." Then you say: "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." No, actually she isn't referring to No. 14 at all, considering that the above quote is in reference to what she calls the "second boat." You can't simply brush aside the fact that Collyer describes No. 14, the boat which her daughter and her were rescued in as "the third boat." You wrote: "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." You are really stretching things here. Collyer's first mention of Murdoch is when she alleges she saw him post guards at the gangways to keep others like the injured stoker from coming on deck. She describes this as happening after saying her husband and her reached the "second cabin promenade deck." She describes the gangway encounter with Murdoch *prior* to saying they were "herded...toward the nearest boat deck." As such, this Murdoch encounter has nothing to do with No. 14. The only other mention of Murdoch in Collyer's account comes after she describes the "lowering of the second boat." This specifies that Lowe was in charge, and that "Murdoch had moved to the other end of the deck." This is the first time she mentioned him since the gangway story, so she is specifying that he was no longer in charge on her side of the ship. You are interpreting this as he was there at the "second boat." Even if that was the case, Collyer was rescued in what she herself described as the "third boat," i.e., No. 14. She does not describe anything about Murdoch being there, and no matter how you interpret her second statement, she is saying he was already gone. Sorry, but no matter how much you twist things, Collyer's account lends zero support to the idea that Murdoch was in any way involved with the loading of No. 14. You claim on your blog to be good at "listening" to the survivors. I suggest you start letting their accounts stand on their own merit, rather than inventing links that aren't there, then continually accusing others of deception when they point out the contradictions. Kind regards, Tad [/QUOTE]
I which year did the Titanic sail?