In my case, I had few real options. On a low visibility watch, binoculars are worse then useless in my opinion. By the time you spot to danger, it's already so close that you don't need them. (But you might need to "Make yer peace!" )
I think the picture is a hoot. Typical of a politician. However speaking of High Density Sun Filters. I picked up a set of Variable Density Filters (Polarized) from a surplus store. They fit on the eye pieces and work very well.
At least one pair of binoculars was recovered. They may be online. They are rather mangled. I think they are some kind of "night glasses" as described above.
There were no "missing binoculars". The evidence is a bit messy and comes from several men. It's clear that David Blair saw fit to lend the lookouts the second officer's binoculars for the run from Belfast to Southampton. I suggest that was because they were in busy waters, with ships to avoid and lights to find. No binoculars were intended to be supplied to the lookouts, which was normal.
Dave is right, of course, and it was a poor choice of language to use the word "missing". As I remember, Davy Blair loaned his binoculars to the lookouts just once, and then put them back into the second officers quarters. Those are the ones I'd like to see, restored, and used in objective testing to see whether or not any difference might have been made. (Actually, I think we know what the outcome of those tests would be, but I'd like to firmly crush those rumors once and for all.)
>>(Actually, I think we know what the outcome of those tests would be, but I'd like to firmly crush those rumors once and for all.)<<
That's about the size of it. Dave Gittins, Charles Weeks, and myself have more seagoing experience between the three of us then we may care to think about, and our attitudes towards binoculars are coloured by a lot of training and experience. Ask any other experienced sailor on this forum about this and I think you'll find that their attitudes are much the same.
Still, it's been experimented with and tested to death, and for all of that, the message just doesn't seem to get out. The whole thing with binoculars was misdirection back in 1912 and they knew it then. Many a trained officer even said as much in sworn testimony. However, this whole thing is so deeply entrenched in the whole Titanic mythos that I doubt we'll ever see it go away.
For an accurate description of what happened to the binoculars and why it likely wouldn't have made a difference, if that really interests you, please look at Dave Gittins' and Mike Standart's messages earlier in this thread.
And PLEASE, find a reliable web site or other source to cite; the problems with the site you cite in every one of your messages have been pointed out to you several times, at least. It is of, at best, questionable value and reliability.
>>On the plus side the Iceberg photos are great!<<
However, the representative paintings which have been gleaned from God knows where but which have been around for years are also inaccurate. Icebergs don't float the way presented in the paintings because their centre of gravity would cause them to flip over on their sides.
At least the iceberg shows where the biggest danger lurks, the 9/10's of that mutha you don't see. Phooey on the binocs-too bad somebody didn't check the locker with the rockets however. that does seem a bit careless. Michael-seems like reality is up for grabs these days-the digital world can provide ANYTHING!
You can bring binoculars if you like but in my own professional experience, I found them to be of little real use. I found the instant tunnel vision they imposed to be unacceptable and they are very difficult to properly scan with even under ideal conditions.