B

Bob_Read

Guest
Jim: There is only endless speculation based on conflicting and testimony. I’ve endured as much of the subject as I can on these pages. I believe the members of the MAIB were competent enough to render their bottom line conclusion. That’s the only part that holds any interest for me. Life is short enough as it is.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
548
388
Wishful thinking makes everyone an expert. Certainly, as caring human beings we all wish the tragedy of Titanic's victims could have been lessened. It's all too easy to say that everyone could have been loaded into overcrowded lifeboats and lowered away. Or, that a one-compartment ship like Californian could have steamed hell-bent through an ice field and into a mass of humanity for a spectacular rescue. Only in Hollywood.

So, wishful thinking and dreams don't work to either reduce loss of life or prevent tragedies. What works is strong action based on working ideas possible with the equipment at hand. You prevent accidents, not cure them. That's why the International Ice Patrol has been so successful. It was born out of the simple thought to prevent iceberg accidents. Over the years the IIP has changed and adopted new technologies, but the underlying concept of preventing another Titanic.

And, to answer Bob Read's somewhat sarcastic question -- no, the rats take care of themselves.

-- David G. Brown
 
B

Bob_Read

Guest
David: When some want to elevate the worth of a dog’s life to that of a human’s then it is not meant to be sarcastic at all if I ask if rats are afforded the same status.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Jim: There is only endless speculation based on conflicting and testimony. I’ve endured as much of the subject as I can on these pages. I believe the members of the MAIB were competent enough to render their bottom line conclusion. That’s the only part that holds any interest for me. Life is short enough as it is.
For your information, the MAIB concluded the following:

" In my opinion, TITANIC was not seen by CALIFORNIAN nor vice versa, except possibly at a range much greater than the ordinarily visible horizon owing to abnormal refraction." .. "I therefore consider that CALIFORNIAN was between 17 and 20 miles from TITANIC at the time of collision, bearing about NW by N from her.

There were two pieces of evidence which would have confirmed the above opinion, but were not considered by the author or his predecessor> These were:
A: The alleged height above the horizon of Carpathia's rockets seen by Californian's officers at or near to 3-30 am on the morning of April 15,
and
B: The difference between the Noon position of the SS Mesaba at Noon, April 14 and her estimated position an hour earlier, at 11 am that same day.

I presume you know that?
 
B

Bob_Read

Guest
Jim: I neither know about that or care about that. It’s your hobby horse. Ride it to your heart’s content. As I said, life’s too short as it is for me to want to compete with you for the title of the Californian’s foremost contrarian.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
[
Jim: I neither know about that or care about that. It’s your hobby horse. Ride it to your heart’s content. As I said, life’s too short as it is for me to want to compete with you for the title of the Californian’s foremost contrarian.
Then, if you do not wish to compete, I can only assume that you do not wish to join in the quest for, or indeed care about, the truth.

The only way to establish truth is by scrutiny of all available evidence concerning Californian's position relative to that of the sinking Titanic. Thereafter, the question of that ship's ability or otherwise, to render assistance can be properly, and intelligently assessed in the light of such an exhaustive examination.

Since you do not wish to participate in the quest for truth, perhaps, as we say in Scotland, you are simply happy to put -in your "Two bob's-worth" without fear of contradiction?:cool:
 
B

Bob_Read

Guest
Jim: I only know of one person who is on a "quest" in this subject. Reminds me a lot of Don Quixote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 22, 2003
6,479
1,744
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
There were two pieces of evidence which would have confirmed the above opinion, but were not considered by the author or his predecessor> These were:
A: The alleged height above the horizon of Carpathia's rockets seen by Californian's officers at or near to 3-30 am on the morning of April 15,
and
B: The difference between the Noon position of the SS Mesaba at Noon, April 14 and her estimated position an hour earlier, at 11 am that same day.
Neither of these confirm your assertion. But we've been through all this time and time again, and its not worth repeating. And regarding the MAIB findings, that was only one person's opinion which contradicted the other person's conclusions who was originally called to examine the case.
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
720
401
108
Glasgow, Scotland
Bob, can you clear something up for me ?

I've read previously that the boat winches were tested in Belfast with a weight equivalent to about sixty-five or even seventy persons.

Yet the late Brian Ticehurst in the Death of a Dream documentaries from way back in the early nineties on the other hand claimed that they tested the actual boats themselves with the weight of seventy men.

From your research into this, what's the truth of the matter ?

Thanks.
 
B

Bob_Read

Guest
Seumas: Here is an excerpt from my article dealing with objections. Make of it what you will:

Edit.: Since this article was originally published, there has been a possible objection raised which has to do with the British Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry testimony by Edward Wilding. Mr. Wilding was one of the chief designers of Titanic and was familiar with all aspects of her construction. The question will be given below.
Edward Wilding of Harland and Wolff testified that he had witnessed a test of a full load launch of Olympic’s original lifeboats.
Mr. Wilding did mention this test in his testimony as follows:
20491. Will you just address yourself a little to that question?
- I remembered when that point was first raised that I had actually seen one of the lifeboats on the "Olympic" in the air loaded with a weight which would correspond to the passengers, and I wrote for the date. On the 9th of May, 1911 - that was shortly before the "Olympic" left Belfast - we put into one of the lifeboats of the "Olympic" half-hundredweight weights distributed so as to represent a load equal to about 65 people, and then we raised and lowered the boat six times. It was done with the object of testing the electric boat winches, not with the object of testing the boat. I happened to see it coming up one time myself after the weights had been removed (the boat was lowered without weights into the water.), and there was nothing the matter with her; she was watertight. I do not think there was any doubt the boats were strong enough to be lowered containing the full number of passengers, and I think that it was in the evidence of Wheat that he lowered a boat with about 70 in her. I think that confirms our Belfast test.

The question arises as to what weight should be given Mr. Wilding’s testimony as regards a full capacity test of the launch of Olympic’s boats. Setting aside questions about the truthfulness of Mr. Wilding’s testimony, of how much worth is it? First and foremost is that there is no indication that this test was documented in writing anywhere. This prevents any examination of the specifics of the test, especially what weight they deemed an average for each occupant. It is not clear that Mr. Wilding himself was supervising the test and how familiar he was with the specifics of the test. This appears to have been a Harland and Wolff test with no supervision by any representatives of the BoT. Given these facts we have only the testimony of Mr. Wilding on which to base any objections that the boats had been test launched with a capacity load. The reader will have to decide for himself what weight to give to Mr. Wilding’s testimony. It seems clear that the BoT had not deemed it necessary to do full load lifeboat tests on boats of vessels launched before March 1, 1913.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
B

Bob_Read

Guest
The steward Joseph Wheat estimated that lifeboat 11 was loaded with 70 occupants. Bill Wormstead and Tad Fitch’s research found that the actual total was about 50 occupants.
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
720
401
108
Glasgow, Scotland
The steward Joseph Wheat estimated that lifeboat 11 was loaded with 70 occupants. Bill Wormstead and Tad Fitch’s research found that the actual total was about 50 occupants.

Aye, according to their research they believe the most any boat held when it was lowered from the ship was No. 15 which held 68 people that night.

Would you ever go so far as to say Bob, that Murdoch and Moody may have been taking a calculated risk filling a boat up with that many ?
 
B

Bob_Read

Guest
68 people doesn’t imply the weight of 68 adults. If they were mostly adults I would agree that they were taking a calculated risk with the davits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 22, 2003
6,479
1,744
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
68 people doesn’t imply the weight of 68 adults. If they were mostly adults I would agree that they were taking a calculated risk with the davits.
If the davits and falls were designed to support the weight of 65 people loaded into a boat (whatever that turned out to be) then the calculated breaking point would have been some percentage greater than that designed point. Just like designing for the max stress expected on the sheer strake under defined conditions.

I think the bottom line was that the boats, speaking in general, were severely underloaded given the severity of the situation.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Neither of these confirm your assertion. But we've been through all this time and time again, and its not worth repeating. And regarding the MAIB findings, that was only one person's opinion which contradicted the other person's conclusions who was originally called to examine the case.
We have most certainly have been "through all this time and time again, " but I will keep raising the subject until you address the problem properly. Simply because you publish a paper on a subject or stonewall any challenge does not make it go away.
I have to say this, Sam. In many of your excellent, previous papers on the subject, you have completely ignored the evidence or 'bent' it to suite your preconceived ideas. Consider the following relevant to this little "efforts".
Ignored:
You and the MAIB ignore the fact that both the SS Trautenfels and the SS Mesaba, encountered the ice barrier at the same place on the same day as did the SS Californian. All within a space of 17 hours.
You and the MAIB ignored the fact that the SS Mesaba, encountered a northward, not a southward, setting current between about 3-15 am, April 14 when she turned The Corner and 11 am that same morning, In fact, she was to the east of and 12 miles to the northward of where she thought she should have been at Noon that day.
You and the MAIB factored-in a south-setting current, despite the complete absence of any mention of such a current by any ship-master in the area at that time. You both made the mistake by assuming that since the ice was so far south, a current must have brought it to that location and completely ignored the other element which seriously effects the position of sea ice - wind.
"Bent":
Then there is your "artistic" treatment of the evidence of Californian's 2nd Officer and Apprentice relative to the sighting of Carpathia's rockets.
In their evidence concerning where they saw these rockets, they stated:
Stone: " I crossed over to the port wing of the bridge and watched its direction with my binoculars. Shortly after, I saw a white light in the sky right dead on the beam... At a very great distance I should judge... Such a distance that if it had been much further I should have seen no light at all, merely a faint flash."
Gibson: "
I saw the first one, and I reported it to the Second Officer, and we looked out for more to see if we could see any more - and we saw two more....- It was right on the horizon."
Despite what was actually said, you chose to "gild the lilley" with:
"Both Stone and Gibson reported seeing rockets very low on the horizon at that time."
Very low on the horizon
is not what they said. I suggest that you Quote the evidence properly.
When I challenged you on that point earlier, you came back with some fantastic theory that despite looking at the horizon through binoculars, Stone could not actually see it...really?

Why don't you swallow the "bitter bill" Sam and admit that the evidence of the sighting of Carpathia's rocket flash on the horizon indicates a separation distance of not less than 20 miles for a 250 feet altitude rocket and as much as 30 miles for a 650 feet altitude rocket.
But I'm not finished.
Like Captain John J. Knapp, USN, you even bent the shape of the ice barrier to make the evidence fit. As proof of that, I quote from what
you have written on that subject in the past: "
"The general lay of the ice field was draw from descriptions given by Captains Lord, Moore, and Rostron. It was described
as running from NW to SE on the eastern side by Rostron, and from NNW to SSE true on the western side by Lord and
Moore."

The truth is that Captain Moore stated "Of course it extended as far as the eye could reach, north and south, sir....I should say 20 miles, perhaps more than that. " And Captain Lord wrote in his ice report: " .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 .
Captain Rostron said the ice Field extend NW to SE... not the ice barrier. For the barrier to extend SW from his position 3 miles east of the barrier and for Californian to leave the west side at 50-01 West, the barrier would have had to have been nearer to 7 miles wide at that point. That is totally absurd.
In addition, the Captain of the Mesaba reported that at 2 pm on the 14th April: "Had to steer
about 20 miles south to clear it. Ice seemed to be one solid wall of ice, " What more proof do you need?

The foregoing is not the end of it all by any means.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 22, 2003
6,479
1,744
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
but I will keep raising the subject until you address the problem properly
You have have expounded your own own beliefs on this site ad nauseam and clearly dismiss the arguments raised by others that actually prove you wrong. I care not to engage in such an endless task as it has become obvious to me that even when direct evidence is presented, even from those on Californian such as the compass bearing taken to the rocket-firing steamer to the south, or the lack of a visible horizon (both of which were supported by at least two independent Californian eyewitnesses), you dismiss it as incorrect because it doesn't fit your view of reality. You don't seem or care to recognize the difference when someone is speaking in general terms, such as the trend of the icefield vs. actual courses taken in trying to get around it.

I could go on and on, but I think the readers here already know what you are all about when it comes to Californian, or anything that could possibly be remotely related to it.