Any recommendation apart from these books already read?

Jan 11, 2014
24
1
33
Hi from Argentina!, I read A Night To Remember, The Night Lives On, The Testimony of Lightoller, Gracie and Bride, Golden Age and no one else.

Any interesting another book? Thanks!

PS: Not so technical but about the lifeboats and the aftermath of survivors if possible.

Thanks.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,518
559
123
In response to the above, there are two quick books:

"Report into the loss of the SS Titanic" by Samuel Halpern and others (while technical) does have a section explaining the timeline of evacuation, movements and recovery of the lifeboats with times of events.

"Voices From The Carpathia" by George Behe has dozens of accounts from passengers of the Carpathia of witnessing and helping look after the Titanic's survivors (although some are secondhand accounts by newspapers so their validity can be questionable).

Hope this helps. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alfred Nourney

Arun Vajpey

Member
Apr 21, 2009
981
186
113
63
There are 2 superb books on the Titanic that are far and away best works on the subject.

On A Sea Of Glass by Fitch, Leyton and Wormstedt is the best book as far as the disaster itself is concerned. Read it slowly to get a clear mental picture of what it must have been like on board the great ship that fateful night.

The aforementioned Report into the loss of the SS Titanic by Samuel Halpern is the best book as far as the timeline and technical aspects of the disaster are concerned. It is extremely well researched and informative, tending to answer many of the technical questions that enthusiasts have about the Titanic. The diagrams and graphs are particularly interesting.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
"Report into the loss of the SS Titanic" by Samuel Halpern and others (while technical) does have a section explaining the timeline of evacuation, movements and recovery of the lifeboats with times of events.
I’ve just finished it. There are many speculations and declarations that are not supported by the eyewitnesses’ accounts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Currie

Arun Vajpey

Member
Apr 21, 2009
981
186
113
63
Our understanding of the entire Titanic disaster today is through a combination of evidence, eyewitness accounts and quite a lot of intelligent speculation. Without going into specific details, we have seen several times where eyewitness accounts have been contradictory, inconsistent, inaccurate going by evidence, embellished and in some cases outright impossible. Many of the 'speculations' by trained researchers like Sam Halpern have taken into account the available evidence, considered related eyewitness accounts and then worked out the most likely scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Currie

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
Even intelligent speculations have to be based on something. I’ve got an impression that in a few instances the author comes up with his own evidence that isn’t based on anything and serves the only purpose namely to support the author’s own narrative.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,256
684
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Even intelligent speculations have to be based on something. I’ve got an impression that in a few instances the author comes up with his own evidence that isn’t based on anything and serves the only purpose namely to support the author’s own narrative.
Can you be a bit more specific Alex? We tried to cite sources as much as possible, and where speculation was done, we tried to make that very clear. I certainly don't mind filling in any missing blanks if I can. Keep in mind that there is only so much one can put into one piece of work. Some details were more fully covered in supporting articles that were referenced. Also where opinions were given, we tried to make that clear.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
I’ve been more specific here 2nd Officer Stone's Interrogation.
In some instances you rely too much on your absolutely baseless in my opinion assumption that the Californian was swinging erratically and retrograde. If we are to assume she was not, you cannot even account for the sightings of the sidelights from the lifeboat #8.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,256
684
273
Chicago, IL, USA
In some instances you rely too much on your absolutely baseless in my opinion assumption that the Californian was swinging erratically and retrograde.
First of all Alex, what I wrote in 'Report Into the Loss...' was:

>>> The bottom line is that changes in relative bearings to rockets sent up from Titanic, as well as from Carpathia, were seen from the bridge of Californian that night. Since we know that compass bearings to the rockets could not change, the only valid explanation for the change in relative bearings to those rockets is the swinging of the vessel from which these observations were made. The swinging of Californian may have been somewhat erratic at times, possibly even retrograde, causing a misinterpretation of what was being seen. It also seems that careful correlations in time between relative bearings and ship headings may not have been taken, leading to false conclusions about the movements of the vessel from which those rockets came. <<<

Please note that the words, "may have been", "may not have been taken", are clearly stating possibilities, not baseless facts. The possibly retrograde swinging was not a baseless assumption Alex. The previous paragraph called the reader's attention to the relative bearing of Carpathia's rockets observed by Gibson and reported in his Apr18th written report to Lord. What was said about that was:

>>> Given the great distance that Carpathia would have been from Californian, the compass bearing to all three rockets should not have changed. But if Californian swung briefly to starboard between the first and second rocket seen, and then swung back to her previous heading by time the third one went up, then that would explain Gibson’s observations. That the second and third rockets were seen on slightly different relative bearings was also noted by Stone who, as we have seen, wrote that they were “a little distance apart.” <<<

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, I have no problem with that, but if you are going to use the term "absolutely baseless" then you should really explain why.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, I have no problem with that, but if you are going to use the term "absolutely baseless" then you should really explain why.
I see no testimony that proves or at least alleges that between 12 :15 a.m. and 1:40 a.m. the Californian was swinging erratically and if she was not you cannot account for the sightings of the sidelights by the survivors in the lifeboat #8.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
Actually I could be even more specific.
You allege that the lifeboats lost the sight of Californian's lights by 4 a.m. because at 4 a.m. she was showing her stern light to them.
You allege that for 3 hours, from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m. , the lifeboat #8 got closer to the
Californian for 3-4 miles and that allowed them to sight the Californian’s sidelights.
So, the question is on what time and by what means the survivors from the lifeboat #8 were able to sight
both Californian’s sidelights together as we know they did, if at 4 a.m. she was showing her stern light to them.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,256
684
273
Chicago, IL, USA
So, the question is on what time and by what means the survivors from the lifeboat #8 were able to sight
both Californian’s sidelights together as we know they did, if at 4 a.m. she was showing her stern light to them.
Hi Alex,
From what I could gather, boat 8 started off for this steamer as soon as it was launched. According to Mersey’s assessors (BI 18065), a lightly loaded 30 foot lifeboat, such as boat No. 8, being pulled by four men on a calm sea could make about 2½ to 3 knots. My guess is that that particular sighting was within that first hour.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
Mr. Boxhall saw both sidelights together at around 1:20 a.m. 1:20 a.m. was the only time the lifeboat # 8 would have been able to see both sidelights together. If at that time the lifeboat and the Californian were 9.6 miles apart how in the world the lifeboat could have lost the sight of the Californian by 4 a. m.while rowing with the speed 3 knots?
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,256
684
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Hi Alex,
Where did you get that 1:20 time? I don't think that came from Boxhall, but I could be wrong. I do know that Crawford estimated that they had to row 3-4 miles to get back to Carpathia, and Rostron estimated that that boats were scattered over a distance of 4-5 miles from him after it got light enough to see. Personally, I don't think any of the boats rowed continuously for hours after they got away. That would have taken quite an effort.

Actually, I'd be interested in hearing what have to say about all of this.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
Mr. Boxhall, left the Titanic at 1:45. Before that he lost the sight of the red sidelight that he was watching for some time. So I estimated he sighted both sidelights together somewhere at 1:20. You alleged that the fact that Boxhall lost the sight of the sidelight indicates that the Californian and the Titanic were 13 miles apart. If so how the #8 was able to sight the sidelights in 20 minutes, make it even 30 minutes?
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
So, Samuel, do you agree that your “13 miles apart” speculation and the sighting from #8 contradict each other?
Besides, if Stone and Gibson lost the sight of the Titanic’s sidelight because it went below their horizon as you allege, how you could explain the changes in the masthead light’s appearance that occurred at the same time.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,256
684
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Alex, between the firing of the 7th rocket that was seen and the 8th that was seen, Californian had to have pointed toward Titanic if Gibson's account was anywhere near being accurate. By 1:40am boat #8 could have moved about 2 miles toward the lights and thus come within about 10 miles. Also, I still believe that Californian's swing was at times erratic. Unless someone else has a better explanation for the separation between relative bearings to the 3 rockets that were seen around 3:20. Both Stone and Gibson noted that, with Gibson providing quantitative values. By the way, according to Gibson, the mast light was visible all the time until the ship disappeared at 2:05. He said it was only dimmer than it was before, not surprising given the trim and list angle assumed by the sinking ship at the time.

I still would like to hear your thoughts on all of this. Do you buy into the flotilla of mystery ships explanation?
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
Alex, between the firing of the 7th rocket that was seen and the 8th that was seen, Californian had to have pointed toward Titanic if Gibson's account was anywhere near being accurate. By 1:40am boat #8 could have moved about 2 miles toward the lights and thus come within about 10 miles. Also, I still believe that Californian's swing was at times erratic. Unless someone else has a better explanation for the separation between relative bearings to the 3 rockets that were seen around 3:20. Both Stone and Gibson noted that, with Gibson providing quantitative values. By the way, according to Gibson, the mast light was visible all the time until the ship disappeared at 2:05. He said it was only dimmer than it was before, not surprising given the trim and list angle assumed by the sinking ship at the time.

I still would like to hear your thoughts on all of this. Do you buy into the flotilla of mystery ships explanation?
Mr. Gibson was probably incorrect about 1:40 because if he were correct, it leaves no time for Mr. Boxhall to observe and to loose the red. Mr. Boxhall testified he sighted the red most of the time.
I know Mr. Gibson was able to see the masthead light to the end, but it brightness diminished at the same time the sidelight disappeared. Therefore, it is doubtful that the sidelight disappeared because it went below the Californian’s horizon.
I do not believe in mystery ships.
I have read an unpublished book that explains many things that neither mystery ships allegations, nor your speculations are able to explain.