Chronology - Sinking of the Titanic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 22, 2003
5,356
739
273
Chicago, IL, USA
In Dave Brown’s latest contribution to ET, “Chronology — Sinking of S.S. Titanic,”￾ he has a caution statement on the first page of the complete downloadable chronology which reads: “CAUTION: Times Presented In This Chronology Are Approximations Made To The Best Of The Author’s Ability.”￾

Unfortunately, a more accurate caution statement would be that many of the times and some of the unsupported events presented in this chronology represent solely the author’s imaginative concept of reality and rationalization of events, and at times, completely disregards evidence which runs counter to those beliefs.
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
1
86
Sam,
One thing I would love to see is a comprehensive chronology of the sinking with all events and conclusions footnoted, so the original sources and eyewitness statements can be cross-referenced and examined for internal consistency, to ensure everything is being interpreted correctly and is not being taken out of context.

This would be an enormous undertaking and in many cases, we couldn't pinpoint a specific time for each event, but it would be a very worthwhile resource, and something that is sorely lacking in the field of Titanic research in my opinion. There are dozens of timelines, but few, if any, are sourced.

Dave,
If you end up reading this thread, one thing I noticed that you may want to correct is that Steward Edward Brown was rescued in Collapsible A, not on Collapsible B as it says later in the chronology. I haven't had a chance to read your chronology in detail yet, but that was something that stood out to me when I scanned through it.

Take care guys,
Tad
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,356
739
273
Chicago, IL, USA
In the Brown Chronology, the author states: "This chronology reflects the general order of events surrounding the sinking of R.M.S. Titanic as based upon the sworn testimonies of survivors. All efforts have been made to insure the relative accuracy of events ..."

But look at just some of the events described by the author which runs counter to the sworn testimonies of survivors, or has absolutely no foundation whatsoever:

22:04 (unadjusted time) "Hichens wakes up Murdoch."

REALITY: Hichens said he went to call upon Murdoch at a quarter to ten.

22:24 (unadjusted time) "Murdoch relieves Lightoller as senior officer of the watch. Lightoller goes off duty. No bells struck as 4 bells have already sounded."

REALITY: Lightoller said he relieved Murdoch at 10 PM. He also said that Boxhall had more than two hours remaining in his watch because the clocks were to be put back. Brown has Boxhall having only 2 hours remaining in his watch. Again a case of ignoring sworn testimony.

23:49 (unadjusted time) "Captain Smith summons Lightoller & Chief Officer Wilde to bridge as ship nears ice."

REALLY? Where is any of this coming from? This is 15 minutes before the accident using this convoluted timeline. This is purely out of Brown's imagination since Lightoller and Wilde were both off duty, and Lightoller said was almost asleep when the accident happened.

24:00 (unadjusted time) "Fireman Barrett in bunker of hold #3 with Engineer Hesketh discussing oiling of burned steel."

REALITY: Barrett said he was in Stokehold #10 in BR 6 talking to Hesketh just before the crash came. He said nothing about what they talked about.

24:02:30 (unadjusted time) "Titanic completes two point left turn. Signals Hichens to steady up."

REALITY: No such maneuver ever reported. Hichens said the only order given to him prior to the collision was hard astarboard. This steadying up business is purely out of Brown's imagination.

24:03:35 (unadjusted time) "Murdoch rings down ASTERN FULL on starboard engine ONLY."

This is pure speculation without any foundation. The only testimony regarding engine orders given by Murdoch on the bridge came from Boxhall who said it was full speed astern on BOTH engines.

24:04 (unadjusted time) "Boxhall comes out on B deck, goes to forward rail on way to ladder down to well deck."

REALITY: Boxhall said he was abreast of captains quarters on way to the bridge when crash came.

24:04:03 (unadjusted time) "Boxhall sees “bluff”￾ of the bow strike iceberg."

REALITY: Boxhall never said he actually saw the ship strike the iceberg. In fact, he was not too sure he even saw an iceberg as his eyes were not night adapted after coming out his quarters moments before.

2404 (unadjusted time) "Hesketh and Barrett slip beneath closing WT door, and into Boiler Room #6."

REALITY: Barrett said he and Hesketh went through the WTD from BR 6 into BR 5.


02:27 (unadjusted time) "Titanic‘s Stern Disappears. Ship Is Now Totally Gone."

REALITY: The stern going under was seen by several eyewitness as a distinct event even after the lights went out. The time was noted (e.g., Pitman) at 2:20. The lights going out was noted as anywhere from 2 to 5 minutes before the stern disappeared. Brown mentions Symons seeing the lights go out from boat #1. Symons also said he saw stern go under 2-3 minutes later, as did others.

There is a lot, lot, lot more I could point to. But as I posted above, this chronology is mostly an unsupported, imaginative account which does NOT necessarily reflect the sworn testimonies of those who were there. It would be unfortunate indeed if people use this material as a factual representation of events on Titanic. Many of the problems presented here have been identified on this site in various threads and in a few written articles. The author of this chronology has not adequately addressed those. (For example, the time of the accident as reported by passengers and members of the victualing staff who were awake at the time, some of whom actually looked at watch. Also the distance run from noon to the accident location was shown not to support the main assertion of a clock setback happening prior to the accident, as does other evidence that is available.) There certainly needs to be some warning given to the poor unsuspecting reader who may want to use this as a legitimate source.

As Tad Fitch said, a comprehensive chronology of the sinking should have all events and conclusions referenced so original sources and eyewitness statements can be cross-referenced and examined to ensure everything is being interpreted correctly and not being taken out of context. Without that, the chronology is no better than a work of fiction, no matter how detailed it may appear to be.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
As previously mentioned by Tad and Sam, yes, a chronology or even article or book needs to be referenced so that the original sources can be examined by the readers/researchers. I've been caught by this way too many times.

Also, many Titanic books have poor to non-existant indexes. Without this, how can a reader or researcher find anything?
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
4,955
205
193
"I accept that the difference between New York Time and Titanic time is one hour and 33 minutes. All wireless messages are referenced accordingly. There is much discussion on this point in various threads on Encyclopedia Titanica. As you will see, the 1:33 time difference accords with events on the ship as recounted by Titanic survivors."

If you'll believe that. you'll believe anything!
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
""I accept that the difference between New York Time and Titanic time is one hour and 33 minutes."

Why this one time, vs. a number of others? You give no reasoning for this. Have you read ET member Sam Halpern's article "The Mystery of Time", published in the Titanic Commutator #178 and 180?
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,356
739
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Since there are many people do not have access to the publication referenced by Bill, here is the relevant extract from my article dealing with the 1 hour 33 minute time difference. As you can see, there really was no mystery on how that came about. The bottom line is that it was wrong; just as wrong as the transmitted coordinates of where Titanic sank.

There has never been agreement as to what was the difference between Titanic time and GMT or New York time (NYT). The American Inquiry settled on a value of 1 hour 33 minutes between Titanic ATS and NYT. The British Inquiry settled on a difference of 1 hour 50 minutes. At the Limitation of Liability Hearings in NY in 1913 a value of 1 hour and 39 minutes was implied by the White Star Line. So let us take a look at how these different times came about.

1 HOUR AND 33 MINUTES AHEAD — THE AMERICAN INQUIRY

At 4 p.m. NYT, Monday, April 15, Capt Rostron of the Carpathia sent a wireless message to Capt Haddock on the Olympic that said that the “Titanic foundered about 2.20 a.m., 5.47 G.M.T.” This makes the foundering time of 2:20 a.m. on the Titanic exactly 1 hour 33 minutes ahead of NYT which would be at 12:47 a.m. At the American Inquiry the issue of time on the Titanic had also came up.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Boxhall, you seem to be the one upon whom we must rely to give the difference between ship's time and New York time; or, rather, to give ship's time and give the New York time when this accident occurred.
Mr. BOXHALL. At 11.46 p.m., ship's time, it was 10.13 Washington time, or New York time.

So where did this 1 hour 33 minute time difference between Titanic time and NYT really come from? How did Captain Rostron get this information? Some people have suggested that the 1 hour 33 minute difference corresponded to the longitude where the collision took place. Titanic’s Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall’s distress position longitude was 50° 14’ W. That position works out to a time difference from GMT of 3 hours 21 minutes, or 1 hour 39 minutes ahead of NY time, not 1 hour 33 minutes ahead. So how did this 1 hour 33 minute difference come about?

Captain Rostron on the Carpathia obtained the foundering time from the Titanic's officers when they were picked up. The foundering time was reported as twenty minutes past two on a clock still set for April 14. If Titanic's clocks had been set back by the expected 47 minutes at midnight, that would make the foundering time of 2:20 a.m. on a clock set for April 14 the same as 1 hour and 33 minutes past midnight on a clock set for April 15. Now all this was probably discussed between Captain Rostron and Titanic’s surviving officers. But confusion was just waiting to happen. Someone must have somehow mistaken the 1 hour and 33 minutes past midnight as the difference between Titanic time and time in NY. By subtracting this 1 hour and 33 minutes from 5 hours he got a difference of 3 hours 27 minutes from GMT. Then to get the foundering time in GMT, he just added those 3 hours 27 minutes to 2:20 a.m. The result is 5:47 a.m. GMT, the time that Rostron put in the message to the Olympic. Unfortunately, it was accepted without question.

Thus we see how confusion, with the possibly of some hasty calculations, easily leads to erroneous results. It should be noted that this 1 hour 33 minute time difference never came up at the British Inquiry a few weeks later.
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
1
86
Hi George, how are you? Thank you for posting the link to your Titanic blog. I am very interested to hear your theory on the alleged shooting incidents and who may have been shot. I am saying that honestly, even though we have many differences of opinion. I am also interested in hearing more about your placements of survivors in the lifeboats, as this is a mutual area of interest that we share.

Regarding your blogs, first the bit on the launch times of the first boats, and timing of the rockets.

In this blog, you wrote:
"I accept that the difference between New York Time and Titanic time is one hour and 33 minutes...the 1:33 time difference accords with events on the ship as recounted by Titanic survivors."

As already addressed above, your acceptance of this incorrect premise is a significant flaw, which leads to several incorrect conclusions in your timeline, particularly, having the launch time of the first boat too early, and the launch time of the first rocket too early.

You wrote:
"For the first time ever we can see when the loading of the Titanic’s lifeboats started–roughly 12:10 a.m."

Then:
"It appears that after giving the order to lower the lifeboats, Captain Smith headed down to see the damage to the ship and to speak with the Chief Engineer."

And:
"That means the Captain had to have returned to the boat deck in time to give the order." (to load No. 4 at 12:10 a.m.)

There are multiple errors in your conclusions here. The eyewitness accounts and their time estimates for certain events, or specific mentions of time, allow us to track the movements of Captain Smith and Thomas Andrews for a significant period of time following the collision.

Since this topic has been discussed ad nauseum on this message board and elsewhere, I will only post a brief summary of the relevant timings:

There are multiple eyewitnesses who stated that the order to begin loading the boats did not come until around 12:25 a.m. Notably, these include Lightoller, Poingdestre, Hart, etc. Steward Wheat gives evidence that the order to *begin* getting passengers on deck didn't come until around 12:15 or so, which is also consistent.

Captain Smith and Thomas Andrews were seen on their joint inspection tour on E Deck around 12:10 a.m., which is in line with Boxhall's evidence that Smith left the Bridge shortly after the Fourth Officer had returned from his inspection of the mailroom. Boxhall says this happened right before he went to wake Lightoller and Pitman, which they said was around 12:00 a.m. During this inspection tour with Andrews, Smith was told that three compartments were gone.

The two men then separated, with Smith being see heading aft to Chief Engineer Bell's room at 12:15, with Andrews continuing his inspection. Smith was seen returning and going back up the stairs around 12:25 a.m.

Thomas Andrews soon learned that 5, and not 3 compartments were flooding. He was seen racing up the grand staircase toward the Bridge "with a look of terror on his face" by two different passengers on two different decks around 12:25 a.m. This is likely when he was racing to inform the Captain the ship was doomed, since Smith had only learned of 3 compartments flooding before the two separated.

This accords with the order to begin loading the boats being given at 12:25 a.m. (Smith gave the proactive order to begin uncovering the boats as a precautionary measure around 12:00 a.m.) Not coincidentally, it can be established that the first CQD went out around the same time, once the Captain learned the news.

All of this is covered in detail in Sam's work, and in the following article, with all sources listed at: http://home.comcast.net/%7Ebwormst/titanic/lifeboats/lifeboats.htm

More later.

Kind regards,
Tad
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
1
86
Hello again George,

In regards to your second blog, about the aft port boats, you wrote:
"The significance of this can’t be overstated. Boats 9 and 11 off the ship, Boat 13 lowered to A deck, Boats 16, 14, and 12 still on the davits, Boat 14 starting to load crewmen preparatory to being lowered."

In previous discussions here on the ET message board, the flaws in your conclusions here were pointed out, but you have chosen to ignore them. You rely on Crowe's testimony that seems to place Murdoch at No. 14. While Crowe was sure the "senior officer" was present at that boat, he only guessed that it might have been Murdoch. Crowe was a member of the victualling department, and would have had little contact with the ship’s officers in the course of his day-to-day duties. In light of the other accounts from members of the deck department who knew the officers and who mention Wilde specifically by name as being at this boat, and considering that there is not a single other witness, including his fellow officers, to suggest Murdoch was at No. 14, it is clear that Crowe was wrong.

You base your entire premise of No. 9 leaving before No. 14 on Crowe's questionable information (and an invented link from Collyer's article supposedly supporting it, more on that in a minute). However, you ignore the evidence given by Seamen Scarrott and Haines that ABS McGough stood by the falls of No. 14 as it lowered, and was subsequently rescued in No. 9, indicating the latter left later. Unlike Crowe, who didn't work with Murdoch in the course of his day-to-day duties, these two seamen knew McGough personally, having served in the same starboard-watch deck crew under Fourth Officer Boxhall with him. The evidence that McGough left in No. 9 is ironclad, being given by multiple eyewitnesses.

You wrote:
"When I posted a version of this article on Encyclopedia Titanica, I was met with a virulent attack...The attack wilted when I introduced Charlotte Collyer...she positively identifies First Officer Murdoch at the boat, corroborating Crowe’s testimony."

George, with all due respect, this is a gross twisting of not only Collyer's account, but also what transpired in the previous thread with you on this topic on ET. As one can see by reading the thread and archived portions of it (https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/6584/125539.html?1215743713), you brought up Collyer's account, and suggested it mentions Murdoch as having been at No. 14, when it does not, which is why we didn't bring it up in the discussion. When I pointed your error out, along with a summary of Collyer's account which disproves she referenced Murdoch in relation to No. 14, you claimed you were "flabbergasted" that I knew about this account and hadn't told you, and accused me of attempting to deceive you. When this accusation was proven wrong, you never apologized, and did not post again in the thread. As such, it was you that "wilted" from the discussion, not the people objecting to your conclusions.

In regards to Collyer's account, here is what she actually describes. I am refraining from typing the entire passage relating to this word for word as not to bore the readers here since this account is well known, but if you dispute that this is *actually* what she says, I could always post the entire section to prove otherwise.

Collyer's account, which was heavily ghost-written, describes her husband and her being in their cabin when the collision came. After going to the "second cabin promenade deck" to see what was wrong, her husband was told by an officer, either Lowe or Murdoch, she claimed she didn't know which, that there was no danger. While they were at that location, she alleges a stoker with his fingers cut off came on deck, warning of the danger, which she says shook her up.

Collyer estimated that between "ten and fifteen minutes" after this, she saw Murdoch place guards by the gangway to prevent others like the stoker from coming on deck. (I find the detail about stokers being barred from coming on deck by Murdoch extremely dubious, in any case, her mention of Murdoch is not in connection with No. 14)

Only *after* describing this encounter with Murdoch does she describe being "herded" toward the "nearest boat deck" by those in charge. Then she describes the order to lower the boats being given. After giving more details of the scene on deck, she describes seeing the "first lifeboat...quick filled and lowered." She then describes the lowering of the "second boat." She says that Lowe was the officer in charge, Murdoch having moved to the other end of the deck. (Still no mention of Murdoch in connection with No. 14).

Collyer says there were two more boat after those at that part of the deck. She claims to have seen Lowe arguing with Ismay. She says the "third boat" was half full when her daughter was pulled away from her husband and her, and thrown in. She refused to go, but was dragged in by some men, and encouraged by her husband. The "third boat" she describes is No. 14, which she was rescued in.

Again, for emphasis, Collyer's account *does not* say, nor indicate in any way that Murdoch was at No. 14.

I hope that this message finds you doing well.

All my best,
Tad
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,356
739
273
Chicago, IL, USA
>>This is likely when he [Andrews] was racing to inform the Captain the ship was doomed, since Smith had only learned of 3 compartments flooding before the two separated. <<

That is essentially correct Tad. Smith also would have learned from Wilde early on that the peak tank was also compromised but that the store spaces above it were dry. If Smith actually met up with Bell after he separated from Andrews, the C/E would have told him that BR 6 was also flooding and would have informed him of the extent of what was being done to control the flooding in various compartments via the pumps. However, it would likely be Andrews who would have realized that the pumping could not control the flooding that was taking place, and that the ship was doomed because of the number of compartments compromised. We know from Boxhall that Andrews had informed Smith that he [Andrews] believed the ship had between an hour to an hour and a half left. Such news would certainly cause Smith to order the boats loaded and sent away and to send out a call for assistance.

In my post above I explained how that erroneous 1 hr 33 min time difference came about. A simple error of confusion caused by the use of a wrong time reference, and a planned clock setback that never took place. The actual difference between Titanic time and NY time was 2 hours and 2 minutes, and based on Titanic's noontime longitude on Sunday, Apr 14. An upcoming article of mine called 'Rockets, Lifeboats, and Time Changes' goes into this in some detail. Visual confirmation of this time difference is also discussed.

George Jacub wrote on his blog, "Later,I realized that many people, including dedicated researchers, have misunderstandings about the loading of the rear boats." I can only wonder who it is that has these misunderstandings? In his post above he says, "Forget what you think you know about the chronology of events on the Titanic. I'm rewriting the canon on my blog..."
All I can say is that it is a rash person who thinks that way.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
There is no disagreement from me regarding Smith's inspection and the comments from Tad and Sam. I know George Behe has done a great deal of work on that front, too, and I remember my discussions with him some years ago. He was very generous with his time and I learned a lot from him.

Although I disagree with a number of George's findings, such as the time difference where Sam, Paul, Dave and others have worked wonders in clarifying matters, it is encouraging that there is at least some discussion of source material and conclusions drawn. As Sam said earlier, 'a comprehensive chronology of the sinking should have all events and conclusions referenced so original sources and eyewitness statements can be cross-referenced and examined to ensure everything is being interpreted correctly and not being taken out of context.' This enables us to see how and why some of the mistakes have occurred. In comparison with David's timeline, the difficulty with the 'Brown Chronology' is that fundamental deficiency in the lack of an evidential basis for so many of the statements within it. To an extent, it is unsurprising, given that it is largely a work of fiction, containing numerous statements that are either demonstrably false or highly misleading, but serious researchers will have the means to establish that for themselves. The problem comes to the more casual reader, who may not enjoy such advantages, and is deceived in consequence.

Best wishes,

Mark.
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,239
483
213
Mark --

Once again you have wandered into personal criticism of me and my work that travels into the area of libel.

-- David G. Brown
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,356
739
273
Chicago, IL, USA
David,

We have heard such rhetoric from you before. What Mark said about your chronology lacking evidential basis or having numerous statements that are either demonstrably false or highly misleading has been pointed out earlier in this thread with a number of specific examples. (See my post above dated Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 4:20 pm.)
 

George Jacub

Member
Sep 28, 2005
146
5
88
Gentlemen....I didn't expect such a response so quickly, although the opening insult was sadly predictable.

It seems you're troubled by my adoption of the 1 hour 33 minute time difference between New York and Titanic time. Rest assured I have read the threads on ET and elsewhere on the Web discussing the time differential, and none of the arguments for a different time are convincing, particularly when they enter a dark forest of set-back clocks and what "was probably discussed" and who "must have somehow (been) mistaken" about something or other.

I avoid speculation whenever possible. As I stated at the beginning of my articles, I start with the eyewitness evidence of survivors. In this case, from the American Inquiry:

Senator SMITH.
Mr. Boxhall, you seem to be the one upon whom we must rely to give the difference between ship's time and New York time; or, rather, to give ship's time and give the New York time when this accident occurred.

Mr. BOXHALL.
At 11.46 p.m., ship's time, it was 10.13 Washington time, or New York time.

I'm beginning to suspect none of you know how a public inquiry is conducted. Before a witness is called into open session, he is questioned by Inquiry counsel and his evidence is taken in private. The Senators (in this example) knew exactly what everyone was going to say before each witness set a foot in the inquiry room. Witnesses are called to give specific evidence in public, which can then be used in the final report. In this case, Boxhall was, we can gather from the set-up to Smith's question ("you seem to be the one"), called to give the time difference among other salient points. The inquiry lawyers would have elicited that information first, questioned Boxhall on how he arrived at that number, then satisfied themselves that the evidence was accurate. That's how it's done and there's no reason it was done any differently in 1912.

The final test was to overlay the wireless messages on a 1:33 template over the other available evidence. It fit perfectly. If you have another time in mind, do the same exercise and see what results you arrive at.

What next? The order to load the boats came not at 12:25. That is evident from the minute-by-minute breakdown of evidence from survivors. The order to clear the lifeboats came 10 to 15 minutes after the collision; it took 15-20 minutes to do the job; then Lightoller got the order from the Captain to load the boats. 12:10 give or take. Reread the evidence of the men who did the job.

The orders regarding the lifeboats were given to the sailors and officers. There were plenty of first class passengers waiting to board the lifeboats when the order came. The stewards were then told to get the passengers still below to the boat deck. When a steward got the order is no proof of when the officers did.

"it can be established that the first CQD went out around the same time, once the Captain learned the news." Please cite your sources for this statement.

And, yes, I have read the Revised Titanic Lifeboat Launching Sequence. And if it isn't clear yet, I reject much of it, starting with the cornerstone that the port boats (16 and 14 at the very least) were launched before any of the rear starboard boats.

Tad, you wrote: "the flaws in your conclusions here were pointed out, but you have chosen to ignore them." The only flaw was that my conclusions did not agree with yours.

In a nutshell, I say the evidence shows that after lowering Lifeboats #9 and #11 to the ocean, and #13 off the boat deck, Murdoch went to the port side of the ship where the port boats had still not been launched. Beesley sees him leave the starboard side and Crowe sees him at #14.

You insisted that Crowe could not be believed because nobody corroborated Murdoch's presence at #14. But you knew full well, as was admitted later, that Mrs. Collyer, who went off in #14, mentioned Murdoch. Your failure to acknowledge you knew of her, regardless of whether you believe her or not, was clearly an attempt to deceive me into believing there was no corroboration of Crowe.

Now, you raise the same arguments again.

'Crowe didn't identify Murdoch,' you say. What part of his mention of the name "Murdoch" do you find confusing?

Nobody else came forward to say he saw Murdoch. If you insist on two witnesses, then I insist there be no double standard; who else saw McGough at #14 beside Scarrott? Nobody?

Collyer's account was "heavily ghostwritten." Proof please.

"She claims to have seen Lowe arguing with Ismay." Nowhere does she say that. She saw Lowe order a man in plain clothes away from the lifeboat. The ship was filled with civilian men in plain clothes. She says she read in the newspaper that it was Ismay, except that Ismay was never at the port boats, so she jumped to a conclusion.

"Again, for emphasis, Collyer's account *does not* say, nor indicate in any way that Murdoch was at No. 14."

Again, let's go over her evidence on that. It can be summed up in a single paragraph.

"The lowering of the second boat took more time. I think all those women who were really afraid and eager to go had got into the first. Those who remained were wives who did not want to leave their husbands, or daughters who would not leave their parents. The Officer in charge was Harold Lowe. First Officer Murdock (sic) had moved to the other end of the deck. I was never close to him again."

One paragraph. Six sentences. The first four sentences can be grouped together and the other two can also. She is clearly talking about No. 14, where "the officer in charge was Harold Lowe." Are you saying that the next two sentences are non-sequiter, that she suddenly changed the subject and started talking about Murdoch for no reason? Of course not. Her reference to Murdoch is fully in the context of No. 14. He "had moved to the other end of the deck." From where? From her end of the deck. And where was that? At No. 14.

But most astonishing of all, nobody has challenged the evidence of Greaser Frederick Scott who picked up the story right where Mrs. Collyer left off, with Lowe in command of No. 14.

"There were two boats left then on the port side; lowered down to the ship's side they were then.
5648. Were there any on the starboard side?
- No.
5649. Let us see if we can get this quite clearly. Did you look over the starboard side?
- Yes, we went to the starboard side first."

****

"I'm rewriting the canon on my blog..." You ain't seen nothin' yet.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
David,

You do not seem to realise that by making these sorts of false statements and idle threats you are merely damaging yourself. People wonder why your reaction is to attack and try to intimidate other researchers, rather than engage in a balanced discussion or debate of the facts at hand.

As you know, I did not make any personal criticism. In particular, I referred to the 'fundamental deficiency in the lack of an evidential basis for so many of the statements within' your chronology, stating that it contained 'numerous statements that are either demonstrably false or highly misleading.' I stand by my statements. Sam has, as he stated, provided a number of specific examples in this thread, which you have not responded to. If you wish to believe that the times and events in your chronology are an accurate account, that is your right, but I doubt that many serious researchers will assign it any credibility given these deficiencies. They are interested in fact, not fiction.
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
1
86
Hi George, how are you?

You wrote:
"I didn't expect such a response so quickly, although the opening insult was sadly predictable."

What insult? I see nothing that anybody said in the initial responses that were written as insulting. Why post your research publicly if you are going to get upset or play the victim when people critique it?

As far as your insistence that the 1 hour and thirty-three minute time difference is accurate, this does little to instill any confidence in your objectivity, or subsequent chronology or timings, in light of the documented evidence to the contrary, but that is your choice.

You wrote:
"I'm beginning to suspect none of you know how a public inquiry is conducted."

Now who is being insulting? Perhaps you are right, and you are the only researcher in the field of Titanic research who knows how a public inquiry is conducted. But I don't think so. Personally, I think you're really off base, and am willing to bet that Paul, Dave, Sam, Mark and the others who have commented in this thread are equally as versed on how a public inquiry is held as you are, particularly given how long they have been researching this.

It is your choice to continue clinging to the 1 hour thirty-three minute time difference, but if you do so without discussing *specific* eyewitness accounts or evidence counter to this as documented by Sam and others, and without providing *specific* evidence to support the 1 hour thirty-three minute time difference, then don't expect anyone to place much stock in your conclusions, which are based on a false premise and flawed from the start.

And no, a generic statement from you dismissing Sam's work and others' in this area as a "dark forest of set-back clocks and what "was probably discussed" and who "must have somehow (been) mistaken" about something or other" is not the same as providing specific evidence to support your claims.

You wrote:
"You insisted that Crowe could not be believed because nobody corroborated Murdoch's presence at #14. But you knew full well, as was admitted later, that Mrs. Collyer, who went off in #14, mentioned Murdoch."

Yes, but the question is not whether Collyer *mentioned* Murdoch in her account. The question is whether she mentioned Murdoch as being involved in the loading of No. 14, as *you* claimed. No matter how you twist it, she says nothing of the sort.

You wrote:
"Your failure to acknowledge you knew of her, regardless of whether you believe her or not, was clearly an attempt to deceive me into believing there was no corroboration of Crowe."

Again, another false accusation of deception hurled at me. Collyer's account was mentioned by Inger Sheil previously in the thread I linked to (https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/6584/125539.html?1215743713), long before you accused me of lying to you or trying to cover it up later.

So giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you knew about this widely-known account after Inger brought it up in one of her posts and you never inquired about it somehow equals deception on our part? Please. As stated in my previous message, all of this can be seen in the previous thread I linked to for those interested.

You quote the following portion of Collyer's account:
"The lowering of the second boat took more time. I think all those women who were really afraid and eager to go had got into the first. Those who remained were wives who did not want to leave their husbands, or daughters who would not leave their parents. The Officer in charge was Harold Lowe. First Officer Murdock (sic) had moved to the other end of the deck. I was never close to him again."

Then you say:
"One paragraph. Six sentences. The first four sentences can be grouped together and the other two can also. She is clearly talking about No. 14, where "the officer in charge was Harold Lowe."

No, actually she isn't referring to No. 14 at all, considering that the above quote is in reference to what she calls the "second boat."

You can't simply brush aside the fact that Collyer describes No. 14, the boat which her daughter and her were rescued in as "the third boat."

You wrote:
"Her reference to Murdoch is fully in the context of No. 14. He "had moved to the other end of the deck." From where? From her end of the deck. And where was that? At No. 14."

You are really stretching things here. Collyer's first mention of Murdoch is when she alleges she saw him post guards at the gangways to keep others like the injured stoker from coming on deck. She describes this as happening after saying her husband and her reached the "second cabin promenade deck."

She describes the gangway encounter with Murdoch *prior* to saying they were "herded...toward the nearest boat deck." As such, this Murdoch encounter has nothing to do with No. 14.

The only other mention of Murdoch in Collyer's account comes after she describes the "lowering of the second boat." This specifies that Lowe was in charge, and that "Murdoch had moved to the other end of the deck." This is the first time she mentioned him since the gangway story, so she is specifying that he was no longer in charge on her side of the ship. You are interpreting this as he was there at the "second boat."

Even if that was the case, Collyer was rescued in what she herself described as the "third boat," i.e., No. 14. She does not describe anything about Murdoch being there, and no matter how you interpret her second statement, she is saying he was already gone. Sorry, but no matter how much you twist things, Collyer's account lends zero support to the idea that Murdoch was in any way involved with the loading of No. 14.

You claim on your blog to be good at "listening" to the survivors. I suggest you start letting their accounts stand on their own merit, rather than inventing links that aren't there, then continually accusing others of deception when they point out the contradictions.

Kind regards,
Tad
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,272
562
183
Germany
Interesting how people came to different conclusions only looking on specific accounts or ignore them!

If Murdoch was involved in the loading of boat No 14 would Lowe not have mentioned him? The last time both worked on a boat together was No. 3. As he told at the American Inquiry.
Mr. Lowe: Let us see. Mr. Murdoch was on No. 5 and No. 3. ...
Senator Smith: Did Officer Murdoch have charge of that boat?
Mr. Lowe: Yes, he was there up to the finishing of No. 3.
Only because Mrs. Collyer saw Murdoch does not mean that he was involved in the lowering of No.14.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.