Any recommendation apart from these books already read?

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
Do you care to share any more about this unpublished work?
I am afraid I cannot. I hope the book will be published in a near feature.
However, regardless of the book, I am very interest how you could address the issues in your own book I pointed out in this topic.
As I said I do not believe in mystery ships between the Titanic and the Californian.
However, when I was reading your book there were some instances, in which it seemed that only the mystery ships can provide the only plausible explanations for some testimonies and evidence.
 

Bob_Read

Member
May 9, 2019
175
69
28
USA
When I was in school I used to hate that kid who would announce “I’ve got a secret.” He did it so he could boast of his superior secret knowledge. But what I learned was that those who had real secrets kept them to themselves and those who didn’t were the ones who told you they knew something you didn’t know and they weren’t going to tell you. Some things never change. My advice is either put up or shut up.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
When I was in school I used to hate that kid who would announce “I’ve got a secret.” He did it so he could boast of his superior secret knowledge. But what I learned was that those who had real secrets kept them to themselves and those who didn’t were the ones who told you they knew something you didn’t know and they weren’t going to tell you. Some things never change. My advice is either put up or shut up.
It is not a secret, and I am not going do disclose findings from an unpublished book. It is going to be published soon.
However, this does not matter. Forget about the book.
Address the points I mentioned above.
Explain why nobody, but Mr. Boxhall saw the green by itself.
Why he saw the red but not the green with his naked eye.

Address the issues I listed in other posts.

When I was in school I used to dislike a rude kid and his advises that sounded more like orders.
I have never understood the people who believe everything somebody writes without even trying to figure out if it makes sense.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,248
682
273
Chicago, IL, USA
When I was in school I used to dislike a rude kid and his advises that sounded more like orders.
But then why do you bark out?

"However, this does not matter. Forget about the book.
Address the points I mentioned above.
Explain why nobody, but Mr. Boxhall saw the green by itself.
Why he saw the red but not the green with his naked eye.
Address the issues I listed in other posts."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Read

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
But then why do you bark out?
Am I? I hoped you were interested in discussing your book, but it appears
you are mostly interested in entertaining the ignorance.

I repeat: while I was reading your book I was about to believe in mystery ships allegations.
You have failed miserably in proving your speculations.
Mr. Molony in his Titanic and mystery ships is much more convincing than you are
Of course there are lots of ignorant readers who will believe anything you’d declare.
By 1:40am boat #8 could have moved about 2 miles toward the lights
Even If #8 got 2 miles closer to the lights, and if both sidelights were be showing at 1:40, # 8 still would have been 1.4 miles away from seeing the sidelights if the Titanic and Californian were 13 miles apart. Not to say that at 2:20 a.m. survivors from the # 8 were able to hear cries of the drowning people. Mr. Crawford estimated at 2:20 they were 1.5 miles away from the wreck site.

I understand you have no answers for my questions, and decided that the best way to proceed is attacking my questions.
I am not sure how I've got an impression that you are a serious researcher.
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2003
5,248
682
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Alex, I'm sorry if your idea of a discussion is to demand answers from others without willing to provide alternative ideas or work of your own. There is nothing hard or airtight when it comes to these topics. The analysis that I did leading to the work that was published in the centennial book listed the assumptions that I made and the tools that I used in deriving the results that I did. For example, I relied on standard geographic range equations under standard conditions in deriving certain distances and distance limits. There are some who believe that atmospheric refraction was greater than standard that night which would modify some of the results, allowing for lights to be seen at greater distances than what the simple geographic range equations would give. What I tried to stay away from was a dependance of subjective estimates of distances or times. I am also open minded enough to realize that certain things that were reported may not have been as simple as they might have seemed to be. As Arun said, eyewitness accounts have been contradictory, inconsistent, and many times simply inaccurate. You took particular aim at criticizing my supposition that the swinging of Californian may have been erratic at times, saying that there are no eyewitness accounts to support that, therefore it could not have been. So why don't you state what you do think happened that would explain all that was seen that night instead of simply demanding answers, or saying that a particular witness was wrong without explaining why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Read

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
Alex, I'm sorry if your idea of a discussion is to demand answers from others without willing to provide alternative ideas or work of your own.
I am not at liberty to share somebody else ideas from the book that was not yet published.
You should be able to explain your own ideas.
Let me ask you one more time.

Please explain why nobody, but Mr. Boxhall saw the green, starboard sidelight by itself.
Why he saw the red but not the green with his naked eye?
For example, I relied on standard geographic range equations under standard conditions in deriving certain distances and distance limits.
Then how did you calculate that Mr. Boxhall’s green flares could have been seen from the Carpathia
at a maximum distance of 10 miles?
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,248
682
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Please explain why nobody, but Mr. Boxhall saw the green, starboard sidelight by itself.
Why he saw the red but not the green with his naked eye?
Alex,
I can only give you an opinion. I believe the answer has to do with seeing conditions, which I believed ranged from very clear (IV code 8) to exceptionally clear (IV code 9), individual eyesight, and visual acuity. Boxhall admitted that he first saw the sidelights though glasses, first the green and later the red, which he claimed he eventually was able to see with the naked eye. Boxhall also said that he was involved with loading the boats and in general helping around the deck in between firing off distress signals, and that he got a QM to help with the firing of distress signals and working the Morse lamp. That QM was George Rowe. Rowe said that when he came on deck the steamer was about 1/2 point off the port bow, the same relative bearing that Boxhall gave when he first saw it. Rowe also noticed that it was about 2 points of the port bow by time he left the bridge which was shortly after Boxhall left. Rowe was on the bridge for about 3/4 hours firing off distress signals and working the port-side Morse lamp in between. Rowe only saw a single white masted light all that time. Two people at the same location over much the same period of time, but only one able to see greater detail than other, and he also had the aid of binoculars.

how did you calculate that Mr. Boxhall’s green flares could have been seen from the Carpathia
at a maximum distance of 10 miles?
I believe I took the height of a handheld flare in a boat to be 6 1/2 feet above water, and height of eye on bridge of Carpathia to be 50 ft. The exact geometric range is 11.2 nautical miles under standard conditions.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
Rowe also noticed that it was about 2 points of the port bow by time he left the bridge which was shortly after Boxhall left.
Did he?
At 1:25 Mr. Boxhall was still at the bridge.

Mr. ROWE.
Yes, sir. When we left the ship thefore-well deck was awash; that is, when we pushed off from the ship. It was1.25 when I left the bridge to get into the boat. When the boat was in the waterthe well deck was submerged. It took us a good five minutes to lower the boaton account of this rubbing going down.

I believe I took the height of a handheld flare in a boat to be 6 1/2 feet above water, and height of eye on bridge of Carpathia to be 50 ft. The exact geometric range is 11.2 nautical miles under standard conditions.
So, now it is not 10 miles but 11.2 miles? Then why in your book the distance is estimated as 10 miles? Besides the height of a person standing in a lifeboat with his arm aloft plus the height of the flare itself was probably greater than 6 1/2 feet.

Besides here is what you wrote on this very site Iceberg Right Ahead

The height of Carpathia’s bridge was about 50 ft above the waterline, and taking the top of the wheelhouse to be 10 feet higher, we find that the visible horizon seen by that officer was out to about 9 nautical miles.

Then why now you did not mention the additional 10 feet?
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
I believe the answer has to do with seeing conditions, which I believed ranged from very clear (IV code 8) to exceptionally clear (IV code 9), individual eyesight, and visual acuity.
Could you please tell me, if your assumption is based on any evidence?
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,248
682
273
Chicago, IL, USA
At 1:25 Mr. Boxhall was still at the bridge.
I'll keep these short. Rowe was using partially adjusted time on his watch which has been shown elsewhere. In terms of unadjusted Titanic time it would be close to 1:50 when he fired the last socket signal and went to the boat. Rowe even said that the vessel sank about 20 minutes after his boat was launched, and it was he who fired the last distress signal. I'll refer you to: Lifeboat Launching Sequence Re-Examined.

As far as the height of someone standing on top of Carpathia's wheelhouse, that is where Rostron said he had one of his officers go to in order to count the number of large icebergs that he could see within the visible horizon all around them. The visible horizon from a height of 60 ft (50+10) above the water is 9 miles distant.

As for why we said about 10 and not 11.2 for the distance of Carpathia when they sighted the green flare from Carpathia's bridge (not on top of the wheelhouse), I'll simply quote what was written in the book:
>>>From the Extreme Range Table in Norie’s Nautical Tables, we see that at this point Carpathia must have been not more than about ten miles from Boxhall’s boat. (Perfect precision in this matter is unattainable. We do not know exactly how high Boxhall held his flares and there is no reason to assume that he fired one just as the extreme range was reached). <<<

As far as seeing conditions, this comes from descriptions cited by a number of sources ,including Lord, Groves, Beesley and a few other who said that stars were visible right down to the horizon, a situation that points to the visibility conditions I just referred to. I refer you to section 407 from Bowditch that deals with Finding Range and Bearing of a Light at Sighting.

Now that I have been kind enough to address the questions you just asked, how would you like to explain what it was that Rowe and Boxhall were looking at that night, or how far from Boxhall's boat was Carpathia when the first green flare was seen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Read

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
I'll keep these short. Rowe was using partially adjusted time on his watch which has been shown elsewhere. In terms of unadjusted Titanic time it would be close to 1:50 when he fired the last socket signal and went to the boat.
How strange. It appears that he testified that the Titanic struck at 11:40 as she did.

Mr. ROWE.
I felt a slight jar and looked atmy watch. It was a fine night, and it was then 20 minutes to 12.

Did he use different times during the night or he decided to adjust his watch right after the collision
just in case?
As far as seeing conditions, this comes from descriptions cited by a number of sources ,including Lord, Groves, Beesley and a few other who said that stars were visible right down to the horizon, a situation that points to the visibility conditions I just referred to. I refer you to section 407 from Bowditch that deals with Finding Range and Bearing of a Light at Sighting.
I know the visibility was very good. I asked how do you know that it was slightly changing.
As for why we said about 10 and not 11.2 for the distance of Carpathia when they sighted the green flare from Carpathia's bridge (not on top of the wheelhouse), I'll simply quote what was written in the book:
>>>From the Extreme Range Table in Norie’s Nautical Tables, we see that at this point Carpathia must have been not more than about ten miles from Boxhall’s boat. (Perfect precision in this matter is unattainable. We do not know exactly how high Boxhall held his flares and there is no reason to assume that he fired one just as the extreme range was reached). <<<
“Not more than 10 miles” is a baseless assumption because as you correctly stated you do not know exactly how high the flares were.

Now that I have been kind enough to address the questions you just asked, how would you like to explain what it was that Rowe and Boxhall were looking at that night, or how far from Boxhall's boat was Carpathia when the first green flare was seen?
“Kind enough”... Maybe you’d be kind enough to tell me how do you know that the first rocket Mr. Stone observed
was the first rocket fired. Did Mr. Stone stated when he observed the first rocket? Could you provide the link please?

Mr. Boxhall was looking at the Californian. I am not sure about Mr. Rowe.
He might have been looking at the Californian or at a star.
Maybe he was looking first at the Californian and then at a star
while thinking it was still the same light.
Did somebody else but Mr. Rowe testified that the light was changing bearing?
If Mr. Rowe really was at the bridge when Mr.Boxhall was seeing the red with his naked eye, I see no reason
why Mr. Rowe did not. Maybe he had some problems with his vision.

I have no idea how far the Carpathia was, when the first flare was sighted, but as somebody explained in
another post the lookouts should have seen it at a distance much grater than 10 miles.
If they did, they would have reported it.
As I said above I believe “not more than 10 miles” is a baseless speculation.
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2008
2,235
539
183
Germany
Did he?

At 1:25 Mr. Boxhall was still at the bridge.



Mr. ROWE.

Yes, sir. When we left the ship thefore-well deck was awash; that is, when we pushed off from the ship. It was1.25 when I left the bridge to get into the boat. When the boat was in the waterthe well deck was submerged. It took us a good five minutes to lower the boaton account of this rubbing going down.


Really, 1:25 a.m?!



Senator BURTON. Was the Titanic down by the head?

Mr. ROWE. Yes, sir. When we left the ship the fore-well deck was awash; that is, when we pushed off from the ship. It was 1.25 when I left the bridge to get into the boat. When the boat was in the water the well deck was submerged. It took us a good five minutes to lower the boat on account of this rubbing going down.

Senator BURTON. She must have sunk soon after you left?

Mr. ROWE. Twenty minutes, I believe.




1:25 a.m. + 5 Minutes + 20 Minutes = 1:50 a.m. Titanic sinks, really?!



Senator BURTON. Did any boats get away after yours?

Mr. ROWE. One boat got away after mine, on the port side.



That was collapsible D.



Senator SMITH. You assisted to get it up in position?

Mr. BRIGHT. Yes.

Senator SMITH. Do you know the number of that boat?

Mr. BRIGHT. I could not say. As soon as the boat was up in place I was sent away to clear another one in place.

Senator SMITH. And you do not know who got into the boats - what members of the crew or passengers?

Mr. BRIGHT. I have only learned since, that Rowe, the man that was working with me, got into that boat. He was in charge of the boat, Rowe was. I was in charge of the other one.



QM Bright was in command of collapsible D.



And by the way 1st class passengers Hugh Woolner & Björnström Stefanson helped to clear collapsible C from men who were in the boat but refused to leave. After helping at Collapsible C - the same boat Rowe left the ship - they went down to A Deck and on the port side when they saw collapsible D passing A Deck. This was the time the forward A deck started to get flooded and they jumped out to collapsible D. Collapsible D was hanging at the same davits emergency boat No. 2 was lowered, the boat No. 2 in which Boxhall left the ship.

When No. 2 was lowered lifeboat No. 4 was still hanging under davits at A Deck a and collapsible D was stored on the boat deck.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
1:25 a.m. + 5 Minutes + 20 Minutes = 1:50 a.m. Titanic sinks, really?!
So the boat was fully loaded. Mr. Rowe was the last one to jump in and they started lowering it right away?

No.

I took them to the forebridge andturned them over to the fourth officer. I assisted the officer to fire them,and was firing the distress signals until about five and twenty minutes after1. At that time they were getting out the starboard collapsible boats. The chiefofficer, Wilde, wanted a sailor. I asked Capt. Smith if I should fire any more,and he said "No; get into that boat." I went to the boat. [Collapsible C] Women andchildren were being passed in. I assisted six, three women and three children.The order was then given to lower the boat. The chief officer wanted to knowif there were more women and children. There were none in the vicinity. Twogentlemen passengers got in; the boat was then lowered.


I am more interested who else testified that the light changed the bearing because if nobody else did,
it could mean that Mr. Rowe was looking at something else.
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2008
2,235
539
183
Germany
So the boat was fully loaded. Mr. Rowe was the last one to jump in and they started lowering it right away?

No.
He helped 3 women and 3 children into the boat then got into it himself. Now how much time would that take?! Then Ismay and Carter jumped into the boat and it was lowered. Then the boat took 5 minutes to get into the water due to the port list and 20 minutes later Titanic went down.
Even if you say 10 minutes for placing 3 women and 3 children into it would be 1:25 + 10 Minutes + 5 Minutes + 20 Minutes = 1:55 a.m. Rowes timing of 1.25 still does not fit! You ignore other evidence as Boxhall left with No. 2 before No. C was even lowered. Collapsible D on the port side left after C (with Rowe) which would have not been able to be lowered as the davits were occupied by No. 2.
And by the way, collapsible C was directly next to where Rowe was and next to the bulkhead where they were firing the detonators. So he only had to cross over which would take him only a few seconds.
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2008
2,235
539
183
Germany
Here is a picture from Olympic in red circle is visible the protruding shell in the socket in the railing (thanks to Bob Read pointing it out some time ago) whic is directly at the bow of emergency boat No. 1 and collapsible C (stored under No. 1) and in orange is the Morse lamp which was at the bridge wing.
44792


So Rowe was directly next to it. Even from the wing cap where the morse lamp was worked from it was a walk of a few seconds to get to collapsible C.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,248
682
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Ioannis,
It seems that some people demand answers from others but are obviously not willing to provide any comprehensive and cohesive alternative explanation that can answer every challenge that can be raised. I guess they are afraid that their views, ideas or opinions may be shredded to pieces if they laid them out there for others to consider.
For example, Alex P said, "Mr. Boxhall was looking at the Californian. I am not sure about Mr. Rowe." Now why is he so sure that Mr. Boxhall was looking at Californian? Can he prove that with absolute certainty? I would find it easier to claim that Boxhall was looking at some unidentified and unresponsive steamer than to say he was looking at Californian. And there are a lot of people who firmly believe just that, as well as a several other unidentified mystery vessels in the area in order to fill in all the blanks of an incomplete puzzle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexP

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
Here is a picture from Olympic in red circle is visible the protruding shell in the socket in the railing (thanks to Bob Read pointing it out some time ago) whic is directly at the bow of emergency boat No. 1 and collapsible C (stored under No. 1) and in orange is the Morse lamp which was at the bridge wing. View attachment 44792

So Rowe was directly next to it. Even from the wing cap where the morse lamp was worked from it was a walk of a few seconds to get to collapsible C.
Both the lifeboat #1 and collapsible C were located at the starboard side. If Mr. Rowe was where you said he was, would it have been possible for him to see the light at the port bow?
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
203
13
18
Usa
For example, Alex P said, "Mr. Boxhall was looking at the Californian. I am not sure about Mr. Rowe." Now why is he so sure that Mr. Boxhall was looking at Californian? Can he prove that with absolute certainty? I would find it easier to claim that Boxhall was looking at some unidentified and unresponsive steamer than to say he was looking at Californian. And there are a lot of people who firmly believe just that, as well as a several other unidentified mystery vessels in the area in order to fill in all the blanks of an incomplete puzzle.
So now you believe in mystery ships?
After reading your book you sure could believe in mystery ships.

I believe that Mr. Boxhall was looking at the Californian because he was looking at a steamer, not at a star, because the sequence of the navigational lights he observed is consistent with the swinging of the Californian, because his testimony is consistent with the testimonies of some other eyewitnesses, because he was located at the Titanic’s port bow and because I see no evidence there was any mystery ship between the Titanic and the Californian. Therefore Mr. Boxhall was probably looking at the Californian.

I am still waiting for the explanations on what you based your assumption that the visibility was getting better, and this allowed the red to became the naked eye object. It is a very important question. Why nobody, but Mr. Boxhall saw the green by itself, and why the green by itself was never the naked eye object. As long as you are unable to account for this you cannot prove your speculation that there was no mystery ship between the Titanic and the Californian.
 
Last edited: