Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jim Currie, post: 109336, member: 144215"] Hi Sam! Didn't think you'd bight! Actually Rowe might have been correct but for the other evidence that suggested the 'light' or 'lights' were moving (from right to left). In this case, Rowe would be partly correct because he would be referring to relative movement. I would be interested to know just how he knew he was heading north. He did not see the mystery lights until he arrived on the fore-bridge, did not have a compass and was never as far as I know,in the wheelhouse. I have been delving into the evidence again but perhaps you can save my eyesight. I seem to recall somewhere that an officer or crew member said she was heading back toward her original course when he left. This together with the emergency turn to port are my main reasons for thinking she was heading to the west when she sank. I know about Olliver's claims but that is really hearsay - not helmsman's evidence. As I see it. the scenario did not lend itself to reversing the wheel to turn to starboard as has been claimed. Why? she would have been well past the ice to have made that of any use. She was also seriously wounded. The soundings showed this. Additionally, why proceed ahead with what might be a gaping hole in the starboard side when there is no practical reason for doing so? The normal procedures in such a case are to first stop the vessel in a safe position then sound round to determine the full extent of damage. Then move only if it is safe to do so. I know,I've done it in the past. The only time you would move in such a precarious situation would be to take the vessel toward shallow water and beach her if you can. Not an option in this case. Incidentally; how could anyone get too much 'Jim Currie' - 'ish' or otherwise? There are loads of people out there lining up to answer that one so don't bother! Cheers, Jim [/QUOTE]

Verification: In which year did the Titanic sail?