Hi to everyone,

I read an article titled "Captain Lord's Uremia" written in June 2013 ( I attach it with this message if people want to read it) and it says in substance that Captain Lord didn't went to help TITANIC because of Uremia that affected his judgement.

That hypothesis sounds weird to me and to quote Lord Mersey "What is in my brain at the present time is this : this hypothesis is crap !

However, being Historian and having learned proper Methodology at University and applying it since, I can't help but asking to expert on this web site if I am right in thinking it, and if this hypothesis has been actually studied as a serious one (i.e scientifically) or whether this is only some words put one after the other (if you know what I mean) like the " coal bunker fire that "sunk" the TITANIC" ?

Thanks !
 

Attachments

  • Captain Lord’s uremia.pdf
    112.4 KB · Views: 39
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Potawatomie

Member
Oct 24, 2020
5
6
3
Hi to everyone,

I read an article titled "Captain Lord's Uremia" written in June 2013 ( I attach it with this message if people want to read it) and it says in substance that Captain Lord didn't went to help TITANIC because of Uremia that affected his judgement.

That hypothesis sounds weird to me and to quote Lord Mersey "What is in my brain at the present time is this : this hypothesis is crap !

However, being Historian and having learned proper Methodology at University and applying it since, I can't help but asking to expert on this web site if I am right in thinking it, and if this hypothesis has been actually studied as a serious one (i.e scientifically) or whether this is only some words put one after the other (if you know what I mean) like the " coal bunker fire that "sunk" the TITANIC" ?

Thanks !
Hello there,

I do not know much about Captain Lord but uremia is usually caused by renal failure. It would need to be end stage to cause that much delirium. Did he have end stage kidney failure? I would assume no because he was able to command a ship. He would be very ill being end stage. It sounds far fetched to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Potawatomie

Member
Oct 24, 2020
5
6
3
Hi to everyone,

I read an article titled "Captain Lord's Uremia" written in June 2013 ( I attach it with this message if people want to read it) and it says in substance that Captain Lord didn't went to help TITANIC because of Uremia that affected his judgement.

That hypothesis sounds weird to me and to quote Lord Mersey "What is in my brain at the present time is this : this hypothesis is crap !

However, being Historian and having learned proper Methodology at University and applying it since, I can't help but asking to expert on this web site if I am right in thinking it, and if this hypothesis has been actually studied as a serious one (i.e scientifically) or whether this is only some words put one after the other (if you know what I mean) like the " coal bunker fire that "sunk" the TITANIC" ?

Thanks !
After some quick research, I see that Captain Lord died at age 84 from renal failure. Even if he had some failure at age 34, (which is how old he was when Titanic sank) it is highly unlikely he had failure to the point of any distruption in mental capability. In my opinion, I doubt he had any renal failure. He went on to live 50 more years after Titanic and people with renal failure (on dialysis) live at most 30 years after diagnosis. Dialysis wasn’t invented in 1912 so it is VERY doubtful he had any renal failure at the time of sinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,038
1,096
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hello Lili... Did you once wait outside the barracks by the corner light? :D
Just kidding.

The article is the usual speculative hogwash that is written about this part of the Titanic story. I dismiss it because of the errors in it, among which I noted:
(1) Californian was not a tramp steamer, she was a Passenger Cargo LIner. A Tramp steamer was like Californian but did not carry passengers. The name "Tramp" came from the way these ships picked up cargo... from door -to door or from Port to Port with no specific area of operation.
2. Californian was not entrapped by the ice, she was stopped by it.
3. Once command is attained, perfect eyesight is not a prime requisite.
4. Lord was not passed over for a position on an Olympic class vessel. By the time these were around, he had already been in command of his own ship for 6 years. You do not ever go back the way.
5. If a master was called to the office to explain a voyage situation, it was with the Marine Superintendent. In Lord's case, in Liverpool, not London
6. Lord did not "see a brightly lit liner, he saw a vessel something like Californian.
7. Stone and Gibson did not see the nearby vessel stop, it already had done so long before they arrived on the bridge. Nor did they or anyone else see a ship having half its lights put out
8. The bridge crew management concept did not happen until the late 20th century.
9. In 1912, under the Mercantile Marine Acts, the master of a vessel was duty-bound to answer a call for help but only if he did not endanger all those on board his ship in doing so. This was designed, not for noble reasons, but to prevent greedy masters putting everyone at risk for the sake of possible salvage money.
10. Following the Titanic incident, and nine months later, Lord was snapped-up by the Lawther-Latta Company's Nitrate Producers Steamship Company If there had been any doubt about his competence or medical condition, to be specific - chronic or even a vague hint of Uremia - Latta would never have hired him. Because any ship commanded by a perceived risk (in the form of Captain Lord) would not be covered by Lloyds Insurance for a ship and cargo. That goes for every year that Lord was in command of any ship. In the close confines of a ship at sea, it would be difficult for any captain to hide the symptoms of uremia - particularly the inability to stand Watch for sometimes days on end.

This article is another in the long line of Eurika moments by amateur marine historians
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Mar 22, 2003
6,219
1,556
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
The article said: "Nevertheless, underlying renal disease may explain his constellation of symptoms. Considering this possibility, it is remarkable that he was able to function in such a challenging career for another 15 years after the Titanic sank; poor health forced him to resign in 1927."

How about the more probable reason that he was able to function for another 15 years was that there was absolutely nothing wrong with him back in 1912?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,052
332
433
As I understand it, uremia occurs in the last stages of renal failure. It may well have finished off Captain Lord at the age of 84. It's not something you live with on and off for fifty years.

Where's Dr Arun when he's needed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Nov 14, 2005
1,759
817
308
As I understand it, uremia occurs in the last stages of renal failure. It may well have finished off Captain Lord at the age of 84. It's not something you live with on and off for fifty years.

Where's Dr Arun when he's needed?
Echo what you and Patawatomie said. If it was affecting his capacity to that degree I don't see him be able to command a ship for as long as he did after the night of Titanic. Especially since after that night he wasn't an unknown figure anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
1,759
817
308
The article said: "Nevertheless, underlying renal disease may explain his constellation of symptoms. Considering this possibility, it is remarkable that he was able to function in such a challenging career for another 15 years after the Titanic sank; poor health forced him to resign in 1927."

How about the more probable reason that he was able to function for another 15 years was that there was absolutely nothing wrong with him back in 1912?
I agree. I never read of any of those problems until the article above. The man was tired that night and went to bed. But I guess it's still not as bad as what others have written about him being a secret psychopath that wanted to see people die that night.
 
I was hoping that you, Samuel, Dave and Jim would be the ones to answer this question, because you are recognized as objective experts on the subject, and also a big thank to Stephen and Petawa, I don't know much about you -- we'll certainly have opportunities to exchange views in the future and I look forward to that.

Now you all confirmed me that I was right to think this article is crap. Jim, I had noticed there was some bad information (the role of Superintendent ; the fact that his port of call was not London but Liverpool ; the fact that a Captain must be sure that his vessel is not endangered if he deems it advisable to go to the rescue of another ship requesting assistance -- but you also taught me some things (i.e : What's a tramp ship and the crew management concept). This article was not the first thing I heard about this Uremia because I had already seen a documentary in which they made the same hypothesis concerning Captain Lord. However, we all know about "TITANIC : The New Evidence" which was a very bad documentary (Ref: "TITANIC Fire And Ice of What You Will").

By the way, is someone knows the difference between TITANIC Ship's time and CALIFORNIAN's Time ? I have stuck in mind that it is of 13 minutes -- I could be wrong for I don't remember where I read that -- but if I am right I don't know if it is backward to the TITANIC or to the CALIFORNIAN. For you understand better (English is not my native language and sometimes I have the feeling I am not too clear) let's take an Example : Let us say that it is 11:40 on the TITANIC, is it 11:53 or is it 11:27 on the CALIFORNIAN ?

It is a always a pleasure to exchange with all of you and thank you for the answers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Potawatomie

Member
Oct 24, 2020
5
6
3
I was hoping that you, Samuel, Dave and Jim would be the ones to answer this question, because you are recognized as objective experts on the subject, and also a big thank to Stephen and Petawa, I don't know much about you -- we'll certainly have opportunities to exchange views in the future and I look forward to that.

Now you all confirmed me that I was right to think this article is crap. Jim, I had noticed there was some bad information (the role of Superintendent ; the fact that his port of call was not London but Liverpool ; the fact that a Captain must be sure that his vessel is not endangered if he deems it advisable to go to the rescue of another ship requesting assistance -- but you also taught me some things (i.e : What's a tramp ship and the crew management concept). This article was not the first thing I heard about this Uremia because I had already seen a documentary in which they made the same hypothesis concerning Captain Lord. However, we all know about "TITANIC : The New Evidence" which was a very bad documentary (Ref: "TITANIC Fire And Ice of What You Will").

By the way, is someone knows the difference between TITANIC Ship's time and CALIFORNIAN's Time ? I have stuck in mind that it is of 13 minutes -- I could be wrong for I don't remember where I read that -- but if I am right I don't know if it is backward to the TITANIC or to the CALIFORNIAN. For you understand better (English is not my native language and sometimes I have the feeling I am not too clear) let's take an Example : Let us say that it is 11:40 on the TITANIC, is it 11:53 or is it 11:27 on the CALIFORNIAN ?

It is a always a pleasure to exchange with all of you and thank you for the answers.
You’re welcome. I am by no means a professional on Titanic, but I have been a NP for close to 6 years and do know a bit about Uremia. Anyway, hope you got the answer you were looking for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
1,759
817
308
I was hoping that you, Samuel, Dave and Jim would be the ones to answer this question, because you are recognized as objective experts on the subject, and also a big thank to Stephen and Petawa, I don't know much about you -- we'll certainly have opportunities to exchange views in the future and I look forward to that.

Now you all confirmed me that I was right to think this article is crap. Jim, I had noticed there was some bad information (the role of Superintendent ; the fact that his port of call was not London but Liverpool ; the fact that a Captain must be sure that his vessel is not endangered if he deems it advisable to go to the rescue of another ship requesting assistance -- but you also taught me some things (i.e : What's a tramp ship and the crew management concept). This article was not the first thing I heard about this Uremia because I had already seen a documentary in which they made the same hypothesis concerning Captain Lord. However, we all know about "TITANIC : The New Evidence" which was a very bad documentary (Ref: "TITANIC Fire And Ice of What You Will").

By the way, is someone knows the difference between TITANIC Ship's time and CALIFORNIAN's Time ? I have stuck in mind that it is of 13 minutes -- I could be wrong for I don't remember where I read that -- but if I am right I don't know if it is backward to the TITANIC or to the CALIFORNIAN. For you understand better (English is not my native language and sometimes I have the feeling I am not too clear) let's take an Example : Let us say that it is 11:40 on the TITANIC, is it 11:53 or is it 11:27 on the CALIFORNIAN ?

It is a always a pleasure to exchange with all of you and thank you for the answers.
Your welcome. Not too much to know about me...just an amature history guy interested in the Titanic and history in general. Your article was interesting but like you said just somebody speculating in a bad way. Through this site and others I've come to notice over the years that I haven't learned anything really new about Titanic as far as the big picture goes. But I have learned a lot about stuff that I onced might have believed that isn't true. But thats just as valuable as well. That also extends to a lot of other historical subjects as well. Anyway interesting thread. Thanks.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,038
1,096
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I was hoping that you, Samuel, Dave and Jim would be the ones to answer this question, because you are recognized as objective experts on the subject, and also a big thank to Stephen and Petawa, I don't know much about you -- we'll certainly have opportunities to exchange views in the future and I look forward to that.

Now you all confirmed me that I was right to think this article is crap. Jim, I had noticed there was some bad information (the role of Superintendent ; the fact that his port of call was not London but Liverpool ; the fact that a Captain must be sure that his vessel is not endangered if he deems it advisable to go to the rescue of another ship requesting assistance -- but you also taught me some things (i.e : What's a tramp ship and the crew management concept). This article was not the first thing I heard about this Uremia because I had already seen a documentary in which they made the same hypothesis concerning Captain Lord. However, we all know about "TITANIC : The New Evidence" which was a very bad documentary (Ref: "TITANIC Fire And Ice of What You Will").

By the way, is someone knows the difference between TITANIC Ship's time and CALIFORNIAN's Time ? I have stuck in mind that it is of 13 minutes -- I could be wrong for I don't remember where I read that -- but if I am right I don't know if it is backward to the TITANIC or to the CALIFORNIAN. For you understand better (English is not my native language and sometimes I have the feeling I am not too clear) let's take an Example : Let us say that it is 11:40 on the TITANIC, is it 11:53 or is it 11:27 on the CALIFORNIAN ?

It is a always a pleasure to exchange with all of you and thank you for the answers.
Hello Lili.

The time difference between the two ships is another arguing point, complicated by evidence given by Californian's 3rd Officer Groves who at the British Inquiry said:
"8217. (Mr. Rowlatt.) What makes you fix the time 11.40 for her lights going out?
- Because that is the time we struck one bell to call the middle watch."


You and everyone reading this should know that the "one bell" remark makes no sense to anyone who has ever served on a British Ship.
One Bell as used above, is not a time. it is a warning - a warning to Watchkeepers that they have 15 minutes left to complete any end-of-Watch tasks. For those about to go on Watch that they have 15 minutes left to get ready to go to work. And a reminder for those who are responsible for calling those going on Watch to make sure these individuals are bright eyed-bushy-tailed and getting ready to go to work.

In fact. if Groves saw 11-40pm on his watch when one bell was sounded, then his watch and Californian's clocks had been set back by five minutes.

Previously, Californian's clocks had been 1 hour 50 minutes FAST of New York Time. After 5 minute set back, they were 1 hour 45 minutes FAST of NYT.
On Titanic, her clocks were 2 hour 2 minutes FAST of NYT. at Noon April 14. This means that if her clocks had been untouched before she hit the ice, her clocks would be 17 minutes FAST of the clocks on Californian. It also means that 11-40 pm on Californian was actually 11-57 pm on Titanic an she had been stopped for 11 minutes.


However, if , as I believe, Titanic's clocks were set back 24 minutes before she hit the ice, then her clocks would have been 1 hour 38 minutes FAST of NYT and 7 minutes SLOW of the clocks on Californian. Therefore, when it was 11-40 pm on Californian it was only 11-33 pm on Titanic and she had another 7 minutes to run before she hit the ice. When she did so and stopped 6 minutes after that, at 11-46 pm, it would have been 11-53 pm on Californian. (I think);)
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2003
6,219
1,556
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
"8217. (Mr. Rowlatt.) What makes you fix the time 11.40 for her lights going out?
- Because that is the time we struck one bell to call the middle watch."
Gibson: "I saw nothing else and when one bell went, I went below to get the log gear ready for the Second Officer at eight bells."
Stone: "At 3.40 I sent Gibson down to see all was ready for me to prepare the new log at eight bells."

For whatever reason, it looks to me that they struck one bell 20 minutes prior to striking eight-bells on Californian.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,038
1,096
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Gibson: "I saw nothing else and when one bell went, I went below to get the log gear ready for the Second Officer at eight bells."
Stone: "At 3.40 I sent Gibson down to see all was ready for me to prepare the new log at eight bells."
He also wrote in his report to Lord:
"when one bell went, I went below to get the log gear ready for the Second Officer at eight bells."
For whatever reason, it looks to me that they struck one bell 20 minutes prior to striking eight-bells on Californian.
You miss the point, Sam. 3-40 is a clock time, not 1 bell. Besides, this is what Gibson said
"7608. Then I think you went off your watch at four o'clock?
-
A quarter to.
Not only that but Boxhall called Lord on the blower at 3-40 am and Gibson was there when he did so. Lord confirmed this when he joined Stewart at 4-30am.

Californian was changing her Local Mean Time by about 1 minute every hour. She was a 3 Mate ship If she altered her clocks in the same way as did Titanic. (which was not always the case) then Groves would have set back the first part of a planned change at Midnight and Stone would have set the remaining part back when he arrived on the bridge.
The LMT for the longitude where Californian stopped was 3h 20m 28s SLOW of GMT and 1 hour 40 m.32 s, FAST of EST. When she stopped she still had LMT Noon April 14 which was 3 h 10 SLOW of GMT. This means that if she did not move from where she was by dawn or even later on April 15 and did not adjust her clocks, they would be 10 min. 32 s. SLOW of GMT at Noon on April 15 or when sights were taken. No competent Navigator would have failed to adjust the clocks to reduce the difference between ship time and LMT.
Apart from the foregoing, neither Stone or any other sane 2nd Officer would have dared to have the Chief Officer called 20 minutes before the latter's due time on Watch.

I suggest you investigate why Stone used 3-40 am for the 15 minute warning. ;) Perhaps, since he was 10 minutes late at midnight partially adjusted time and Groves told him the Clocks were to go back 10 minutes, he set his watch back 20 minutes instead of 15 minutes? i.e. 10 minutes for his tardiness and 10 minutes for the full planned set back. Since the clocks had already been set back 5 minutes by Groves before Stone arrived, this would put Stone's watch 5 minutes slow of ship time.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
1,943
637
388
65
I see that Captain Lord died at age 84 from renal failure. Even if he had some failure at age 34, (which is how old he was when Titanic sank) it is highly unlikely he had failure to the point of any distruption in mental capability. In my opinion, I doubt he had any renal failure. He went on to live 50 more years after Titanic and people with renal failure (on dialysis) live at most 30 years after diagnosis. Dialysis wasn’t invented in 1912 so it is VERY doubtful he had any renal failure at the time of sinking.

Where's Dr Arun when he's needed?
He retired over a year ago and surrendered his licence. I am now plain Arun Vajpey - no title, thank God!

I fully agree with Potawatomie that Captain Lord could not have had kidney disease in 1912. In those days, very limited treatment was available and there was no way he could have lived for another 50 years. Also, renal failure affecting mental faculties is a vary late phenomenon and the only thing someone in that stage could have commanded is their bed and even that not very effectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Previously, Californian's clocks had been 1 hour 50 minutes FAST of New York Time. After 5 minute set back, they were 1 hour 45 minutes FAST of NYT.
On Titanic, her clocks were 2 hour 2 minutes FAST of NYT. at Noon April 14. This means that if her clocks had been untouched before she hit the ice, her clocks would be 17 minutes FAST of the clocks on Californian. It also means that 11-40 pm on Californian was actually 11-57 pm on Titanic an she had been stopped for 11 minutes.
Thank you Jim for information which are always so interesting to me. However in my mind the question seems really simple (I am a real and totally, utterly, absolutely and completely a perfect dummy in Maths and logic !! lol!):eek: but you have find a way to make me feel much more dummy (I'm kidding!) because I have not realized before that there is much more variable than I first thought.

Here is the way I did my calculation :

1) In the British Inquiry (BI) at the question 8936 (Cyril Evans) the Attorney ask to him :

"That means one would have to add 1 hour 55 minutes to New York time to get at your ship's time at the place where you stopped?"
And the answer was "Yes".

Moreover, in the BI, just under the question 16257, when Robert Finlay intervened he said that there was 2 hours 10 minutes between the Ship's time (I mean TITANIC) and New-York Time. [please, note that English is not my native language. Yes, I think I'm doing fairly well to manage English, but to my regret, there are still some subtleties I don't always understand. So if I am wrong in understanding that 2h10 is the difference between TITANIC's Time and New-York, please let me know]. But if I am right, that would mean that when TITANIC struck the iceberg, it was 11h40 (as we all know) on her ; in New-York it was 9h30 and on the CALIFORNIAN it was 11h15. Thus that means that there would be 25 minutes between the both ships.

My question is : why didn't you do that ? I concede that you are probably right (or should I say "surely right") but I want understand why : you are not relying upon the testimony of Evans and the one of Marconi ?

And for the other subject, I have found exactly where the article I brought here came from. At my surprise, it came from a scientific Review, the ones that are for specialists (physicians, psychologist, etc) and which have a review panel like for exemple the "Review of Psychological Journal" or "Journal of Historical Studies" etc. That kind of Review are not "Wikipedia" if you know what I mean.
The reference of this Article is : WYNER, Lawrence Michael., "Captain Lord Uremia", in Turkish Journal of Urology, June, 39, 2, 2013, pp. 131-135.

Here is the link : Captain Lord’s uremia

I propose that serious and scientific TITANIC's Researchers (like Samuel Helpern or other authors of books like "The Loss of RMS TITANIC" or "Sea of Glass") get in touch with the author of this Article for telling him the mistakes about TITANIC and have an exchange with him that could be so interesting about it. Generally, Researchers like to hear about their Articles, especially if there is some flaws in it. It is an occasion for learning and to my experience, university teachers like it.

Just an idea like that :)
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,038
1,096
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Thank you Jim for information which are always so interesting to me. However in my mind the question seems really simple (I am a real and totally, utterly, absolutely and completely a perfect dummy in Maths and logic !! lol!):eek: but you have find a way to make me feel much more dummy (I'm kidding!) because I have not realized before that there is much more variable than I first thought.

Here is the way I did my calculation :

1) In the British Inquiry (BI) at the question 8936 (Cyril Evans) the Attorney ask to him :

"That means one would have to add 1 hour 55 minutes to New York time to get at your ship's time at the place where you stopped?"
And the answer was "Yes".

Moreover, in the BI, just under the question 16257, when Robert Finlay intervened he said that there was 2 hours 10 minutes between the Ship's time (I mean TITANIC) and New-York Time. [please, note that English is not my native language. Yes, I think I'm doing fairly well to manage English, but to my regret, there are still some subtleties I don't always understand. So if I am wrong in understanding that 2h10 is the difference between TITANIC's Time and New-York, please let me know]. But if I am right, that would mean that when TITANIC struck the iceberg, it was 11h40 (as we all know) on her ; in New-York it was 9h30 and on the CALIFORNIAN it was 11h15. Thus that means that there would be 25 minutes between the both ships.

My question is : why didn't you do that ? I concede that you are probably right (or should I say "surely right") but I want understand why : you are not relying upon the testimony of Evans and the one of Marconi ?

And for the other subject, I have found exactly where the article I brought here came from. At my surprise, it came from a scientific Review, the ones that are for specialists (physicians, psychologist, etc) and which have a review panel like for exemple the "Review of Psychological Journal" or "Journal of Historical Studies" etc. That kind of Review are not "Wikipedia" if you know what I mean.
The reference of this Article is : WYNER, Lawrence Michael., "Captain Lord Uremia", in Turkish Journal of Urology, June, 39, 2, 2013, pp. 131-135.

Here is the link : Captain Lord’s uremia

I propose that serious and scientific TITANIC's Researchers (like Samuel Helpern or other authors of books like "The Loss of RMS TITANIC" or "Sea of Glass") get in touch with the author of this Article for telling him the mistakes about TITANIC and have an exchange with him that could be so interesting about it. Generally, Researchers like to hear about their Articles, especially if there is some flaws in it. It is an occasion for learning and to my experience, university teachers like it.

Just an idea like that :)
Good day to you, Kareen.

First may I congratulate you on your command of English and for your kind words.

To answer your questions:

(1). Cyril Evans - It is complicated, but I'll try.
As you may know, ships clocks are adjusted to read 12 o' clock, Noon every day.
The time of Noon every day at any place on the earth, land or sea, is when the sun is exactly South or North of the observer.
The line of Longitude runs due North and South, and Longitude is measured from the Longitude at Greenwich, England.
15 degrees of Longitude equals 1 hour of time.
Thus if ship's Longitude at Noon is known when the sun is due south then time can be adjusted to be correct.
However, Wireless Operators did not use ship's time. Half way across from Europe they used GMT and then they changed to New York Time. There is a 5 hour difference between the two. They also had to conform to the normal ship routines so they had a clock showing the time on board. If it was not automatically adjusted they Operator did it manually.
The difference between ship time and New York Time quoted by Evans was equal to a Longitude of 46 degrees, 15 minutes West.
Captain Lord used a Difference of 1 hour 50 minutes when he stopped
That is equal to a Longitude of 47 degrees 30 minutes West which is 22.3 miles west of The Corner turning point...the approximate position of the Californian at Noon on April 14...when the sun was exactly due south.

It is popularly believed that ships correct their clocks at Noon so that they can be accurate. That is true, but not for the sake of good time keeping on board but because - if the chronometer (the special clock they navigate with) breaks down or fails, then they can use the ship's clock to navigate by.

(2) Sir Robert Findlay was totally mis-informed. The difference between New York Time and Titanic time when the sun was due south on April 14, was, by calculation, 2 hours 2 minutes, not 2 hours 10 minutes. Therefore at Noon on April 14, the difference between Titanic time and Californian time was 12 minutes.
However, both ships were sailing westward and their clock were to be set back every night at Midnight.
Titanic
was to set hers back by 47 minutes.
Californian was to set hers back about 24 minutes.

I believe:
(1) That Titanic's clocks were set back 24 minutes about 2 minutes before she hit the iceberg and
(2) Since Californian stopped near to 50 West, her clocks were set back 10 minutes at Midnight so that they would be correct the next morning.
Thus, the differences between NYT and the time on these two ships was Titanic: 1 hour 38 minutes and Californian 1 hour 40 minutes respectively.

Evans was simply ( dare I say it?) behind the times:eek:

As for writing to the author of the Uremia article? Experience tells me that pointing out errors to most, if not all, Titanic and Californian "theorist" is like "spitting into the wind".;)

Have a nice day.
 
Hi Jim,

Thank you very much for your nice words. It's appreciated. For English, I try to improve myself everyday and I admit that TITANIC help me out a lot with it, considering that all information and books are in English. My best friend since 27 years is British (Yorkshire - Sheffield) and she helps me out too. I am fortunate that she likes History as well, because for the many times in a single day I ask her to explain to me something in English (grammar or syntax), if it wasn't for that, I'm pretty sure that I'd have join the TITANIC long time ago at the bottom of the Atlantic -- without the R.O.V if you know what I mean ! lol ! ;) . But we are far from our topic.

By the way, I have had there is 2 years ago, as far as I remember, a kind of graphic representing a ship looked from a "bird point of view" with "starboard bow" ; "starboard shoulder" ; "port shoulder" etc. written at the right place on to the drawing (I don't know if I am clear, but I put an attach file here just to show you exactly what I mean).
I have lost it last year by mistake while cleaning my computer and I still regret it for it was so useful to me. I can't remember who gave it to me, and I was wondering if it was you that provided it to me and if so, if you still have it ? If so and you don't want to give it to me through here, then you can do it by email : [email protected]

Thank you very much and wish you a good day ! :)

Kareen
 

Attachments

  • TITANIC 7.pdf
    105.8 KB · Views: 10
Nov 14, 2005
1,759
817
308
Sorry if I'm butting in on your question to Jim. But I was not familar with the terms port and starboard "shoulders" I had to go look it up and ran across this. It might help from looking at your drawing.
ship+diagram.jpg
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,038
1,096
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I can well understand the confusion of non-seafarers with the sketches such the one posted by Steven (and me - I have to say). Such sketched are based on the assumption that the viewer has a basic knowledge.
In fact, some of the labels in Steven's sketch are directions relative to a part of a ship, some are positions relative to a part of a ship and others are actual parts of a ship. The word ship itself is a misnomer. Here's a wee sketch that might help. I don't have the original
relative to.jpg
Hope this helps Kareen (or is it Lili?) ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Similar threads

Similar threads