Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
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!" )
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,527
1,811
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Now a highly skillful politician would say they were high density sun filters, not lens caps.
happy.gif
 
Aug 10, 2002
266
1
183
Sam:
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.
Regards,
Charlie Weeks
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
Now here is an isolated instance where I would like to see some exploration done in the wreck of the Titanic itself -- to find the missing binoculars.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
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.
 
T

Timothy Trower

Guest
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.)
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>(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.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
It should be possible to get binoculars more or less identical to those recovered from the wreck. They turn up in antique shops from time to time. Then all we need is a dark night and an iceberg!
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Jul 4, 2000
6,367
390
433
Rena---

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.
 
Mar 7, 2006
106
0
121
I have emailed the author of the website with a list of the glaring errors I can see (and I'm no expert), and they have not been corrected.

On the plus side the Iceberg photos are great!
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>and they have not been corrected<<

Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

>>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.
 

Will C. White

Member
Apr 18, 2007
267
2
123
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!
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
291
278
Michael-
>>People in my particular rate in the Navy tended to get stuch with the low visibility detail) <<

Unfortunately or otherwise, people in my particular rate in the Navy weren't involved in lookout duties, so I don't have an intelligent opinion on the subject .

However, there was a connection with binoculars and the Navy.: I purchased what I consider a very good : "Nippon Kogaku Tokyo Mikron 8 x 35" either at the Navy Exchange or off-base at Iwakuni, Japan.

Should I bring these along on our "time travel" to Titanic (on another thread) or would we better off without them ? (Rather than pick where I go, I'll go where assigned.) LOL
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
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.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads