monica e. hall
Member
Sounds like a waste of money to me ...!
Height of rockets seen from the Californian
- Thread starter Paul Lee
- Start date
-
- Tags
- californian
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Sounds like a waste of money to me ...!<<
And a lot of people on both sides would tend to concur with that. Unfortunately, this thing, right, wrong, or indifferent is now part of the official record and has to be dealt with.
And a lot of people on both sides would tend to concur with that. Unfortunately, this thing, right, wrong, or indifferent is now part of the official record and has to be dealt with.
Just found this account of a ship's officer encountering super refraction, and I was wondering if any of our nautical shipmates on the board could comment as to whether it might have been possible at the Titanic's lattitude?
http://www.confluence.org/confluence.php?lat=56&lon=11
Thanks to the stubborn refusal of PaintShopPro to work properly, I have had to draw a very crude and nasty sketch as to what I think may have happened. Obviously not to scale!
Cheers
Paul
http://www.confluence.org/confluence.php?lat=56&lon=11
Thanks to the stubborn refusal of PaintShopPro to work properly, I have had to draw a very crude and nasty sketch as to what I think may have happened. Obviously not to scale!
Cheers
Paul
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Hi Paul,
To get significant refraction you'd need either a large localized temperature gradient or a smaller gradient over a larger area. The situation you've sketched would need the former, since the light from the rockets isn't significantly bent, but the light from the Titanic is. On a still night, I would imagine that any vertical temperature gradients would be pretty uniform over large areas because temperature differences tend to create pressure differences and hence wind!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it only Stone who described the rockets as only rising to half the mast height? If that's the case, have you considered the possibility that he may have been wrong?
Cheers
Paul
To get significant refraction you'd need either a large localized temperature gradient or a smaller gradient over a larger area. The situation you've sketched would need the former, since the light from the rockets isn't significantly bent, but the light from the Titanic is. On a still night, I would imagine that any vertical temperature gradients would be pretty uniform over large areas because temperature differences tend to create pressure differences and hence wind!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it only Stone who described the rockets as only rising to half the mast height? If that's the case, have you considered the possibility that he may have been wrong?
Cheers
Paul
Paul Wilkinson
Member
Hi Paul
You're correct, he wasn't asked. However, his report to Capt. Lord doesn't read like the rockets were low lying. He mentions seeing the detonation flash on deck and the rockets streaking skywards, exploding above the steamer. One conclusion I've come to about events that night is that a good many eye-witnesses on either ship were just plain wrong. I can see no way to reconcile *all* the varied testimony.
Cheers
Paul (off on holiday for a week, but I'll look forward to seeing where this has gone when I get back!)
You're correct, he wasn't asked. However, his report to Capt. Lord doesn't read like the rockets were low lying. He mentions seeing the detonation flash on deck and the rockets streaking skywards, exploding above the steamer. One conclusion I've come to about events that night is that a good many eye-witnesses on either ship were just plain wrong. I can see no way to reconcile *all* the varied testimony.
Cheers
Paul (off on holiday for a week, but I'll look forward to seeing where this has gone when I get back!)
David Billnitzer
Member
Hi Paul:
I have been drifting around in some of the threads you have going here. You seem to be focusing on parts of Stone's testimony: rockets only going to half the height of the masthead light; his mystery ship moving from SSE to SW1/2W.
If not optical illusions, tricks of the eye and sea, or simple human errors, have you considered the possibility that Stone ("the man on the spot" to use Lord's words to describe him) was simply trying to explain away his inaction any way that he could? After all, this data comes from his captain's demand for a written account of his actions that night.
As you know, Stone himself conceded that regardless of the height of the rockets, and regardless of his perception of that ship's movement towards SW, the most likely source of the rockets was that very same ship.
To me, it sounds at best like tricks played on the eye; at worst, like a big case of CYA.
I have been drifting around in some of the threads you have going here. You seem to be focusing on parts of Stone's testimony: rockets only going to half the height of the masthead light; his mystery ship moving from SSE to SW1/2W.
If not optical illusions, tricks of the eye and sea, or simple human errors, have you considered the possibility that Stone ("the man on the spot" to use Lord's words to describe him) was simply trying to explain away his inaction any way that he could? After all, this data comes from his captain's demand for a written account of his actions that night.
As you know, Stone himself conceded that regardless of the height of the rockets, and regardless of his perception of that ship's movement towards SW, the most likely source of the rockets was that very same ship.
To me, it sounds at best like tricks played on the eye; at worst, like a big case of CYA.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>like a big case of CYA.<<
And in all fairness, my vote would tend to be for this option. My own personal take on this notwithstanding, I don't think anyone seriously doubts that Stone really dropped the ball on this one. They may not have figured it out at the time this was happening...though arguably he should have...but you can bet that a lot of pieces fell into place about the time those wireless messages became known in the morning.
The rest, as they say, is history.
And in all fairness, my vote would tend to be for this option. My own personal take on this notwithstanding, I don't think anyone seriously doubts that Stone really dropped the ball on this one. They may not have figured it out at the time this was happening...though arguably he should have...but you can bet that a lot of pieces fell into place about the time those wireless messages became known in the morning.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Stone dropped the ball? How about Lord? When Lord was told by Stone that the other ship was firing white rockets the best he could do was to tell Stone to try and call them up by the Morse lamp. But Stone was already doing that almost from about the time he came onto the bridge that night. And they failed to get a rely. Why not wake up Evans once rockets were seen? Stone did not display the initiative to do so, but nor did Lord.
Later, when Stone said the ship steam away to the SW why did Lord ask again about any colors in the rockets? When told the first time that they were white rockets it should have been obvious as to what was going on. That would have been the time to act. It also appears that Stone and Gibson could not understand why Lord did not take further action but was content with just trying to establish contact by Morse lamp. They both agreed and commented on the fact that a ship is not going to fire white rockets at night for nothing. Of course, there was nothing really stopping Stone from taking the initiative and waking Evans to find out if anything was up on the wireless. If you can't establish contact one way, then try another way. But was it a case of: If the Captain doesn't think it necessary, then why should I?
I don't necessarily think Stone made up a story about the ship steaming away. I believe he saw a changing ship's aspect and rapidly changing relative bearings, and he may not have checked is own ship's magnetic bearings all the time as the other ship "steamed away." At the last time he looked his own ship may have pointed WSW, but after he may have failed to notice a swing in the opposite direction by a few points. After all, it would be opposite to the general direction in which the Californian was swinging that night. In other words, he may have made an honest mistake in perception. If anyone needed to CYA it was Lord, not Stone.
Later, when Stone said the ship steam away to the SW why did Lord ask again about any colors in the rockets? When told the first time that they were white rockets it should have been obvious as to what was going on. That would have been the time to act. It also appears that Stone and Gibson could not understand why Lord did not take further action but was content with just trying to establish contact by Morse lamp. They both agreed and commented on the fact that a ship is not going to fire white rockets at night for nothing. Of course, there was nothing really stopping Stone from taking the initiative and waking Evans to find out if anything was up on the wireless. If you can't establish contact one way, then try another way. But was it a case of: If the Captain doesn't think it necessary, then why should I?
I don't necessarily think Stone made up a story about the ship steaming away. I believe he saw a changing ship's aspect and rapidly changing relative bearings, and he may not have checked is own ship's magnetic bearings all the time as the other ship "steamed away." At the last time he looked his own ship may have pointed WSW, but after he may have failed to notice a swing in the opposite direction by a few points. After all, it would be opposite to the general direction in which the Californian was swinging that night. In other words, he may have made an honest mistake in perception. If anyone needed to CYA it was Lord, not Stone.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Stone dropped the ball? How about Lord?<<
Oh I'm not debating Captain Lord's mistakes. Those are pretty well known and as the captain of the ship, he bears full responsibility for the lot. However, he wasn't the only player in this game.
>>If anyone needed to CYA it was Lord, not Stone.<<
I'd have to respectfully differ on that. When there's a screw-up like this, anyone on the watch team becomes fair game. Once any serious inquiry goes down, the whole watch team ends up under a microscope. If Captain Lord had ended up facing trial, in all likelihood, he would have had some company in the defendants dock.
Oh I'm not debating Captain Lord's mistakes. Those are pretty well known and as the captain of the ship, he bears full responsibility for the lot. However, he wasn't the only player in this game.
>>If anyone needed to CYA it was Lord, not Stone.<<
I'd have to respectfully differ on that. When there's a screw-up like this, anyone on the watch team becomes fair game. Once any serious inquiry goes down, the whole watch team ends up under a microscope. If Captain Lord had ended up facing trial, in all likelihood, he would have had some company in the defendants dock.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Just curious. What exactly is the OOD's responsibility in this case. He reported to the Master what he saw and did. He followed up on orders as directed by the Master. What else would he be held responsible for? This not to say he couldn't have done more on his own like wake up Evans. But Lord could have, and should have, done that. But he was told specifically to Morse the other ship and report via Gibson if any response or if the situation changed.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>What else would he be held responsible for?<<
Ultimately, that would be up to the jury to decide if and when any sort of action was deemed appropriate. My own sense of the whole thing was that on some level, Stone failed to convey any real sense of urgency to the captain on this. That he didn't exercise some initiative to follow up, say be giving the wireless operator a shake, or go to Stewart (A Chief officer is supposed to be the guy who keeps the skipper honest among other things) with his concerns, wouldn't have been helpful.
Ultimately, that would be up to the jury to decide if and when any sort of action was deemed appropriate. My own sense of the whole thing was that on some level, Stone failed to convey any real sense of urgency to the captain on this. That he didn't exercise some initiative to follow up, say be giving the wireless operator a shake, or go to Stewart (A Chief officer is supposed to be the guy who keeps the skipper honest among other things) with his concerns, wouldn't have been helpful.
A thought occurred to me. Stone said he saw the ship moving off at the time the other ship started firing rockets. Thence, he referred to stern lights etc. However, to shown a stern light, you need to sut in the mast light first. How can you see rockets reaching "half the height of the mast light" when you can't see the mastlight?
Paul
Paul
Samuel Halpern
Member
The first question you need to ask yourself is do you believe everything that someone said they saw? If the answer is yes, they you have a difficult, if not impossible, time trying to explain what they saw. In fact, Stone could not explain it either. Remember he had no explanation as to why he did not see a green nav light as the ship supposedly turned away. He also assumed the brightest light he saw was the stern light, but how could he be certain of that? It was just a bright light. He thought the rockets came from some other ship beyond the one he was observing, but he could not explain how the rockets could follow the changing bearings of the observed ship if they came from far beyond it. And why would the ship steam off in the direction of the ice field after being stopped while firing regulation distress signals, excuse me, white rockets?
The only explanation that makes sense is that what he was seeing is not what he thought he was seeing.
The only explanation that makes sense is that what he was seeing is not what he thought he was seeing.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>The first question you need to ask yourself is do you believe everything that someone said they saw?<<
Awwwwwwwww....hell...I don't even beleive everything they claimed they saw. The problem is that sorting out the wheat from the chaff here can be nightmarish if one presumes everybody told the unvarnished truth. I don't think you'll find anyone in either camp who buys into that one. I don't, but that's just me. I think what matters here is less trying to reconcile the differences and more taking note of the striking similarities that just don't go away.
That's where we get back to those bloody socket signals. The Titanic fired them, the Californian observed them being fired, and so far as I know, nobody has identified anyone else who was doing so.
Kinda narrows down the possibilities. Doesn't it?
Awwwwwwwww....hell...I don't even beleive everything they claimed they saw. The problem is that sorting out the wheat from the chaff here can be nightmarish if one presumes everybody told the unvarnished truth. I don't think you'll find anyone in either camp who buys into that one. I don't, but that's just me. I think what matters here is less trying to reconcile the differences and more taking note of the striking similarities that just don't go away.
That's where we get back to those bloody socket signals. The Titanic fired them, the Californian observed them being fired, and so far as I know, nobody has identified anyone else who was doing so.
Kinda narrows down the possibilities. Doesn't it?
