Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Samuel Halpern, post: 109342, member: 137378"] >>I can't understand why you would believe the evidence of amateurs over that of professional navigators. << There was no evidence offered by a professional mariner in this case. Boxhall just assumed the ship was heading in the same direction she had been steaming. Good try with the Carpathia porting around the berg just prior to picking up boat 2. But the Carpathia's mast lights would have been visible for quite some time before she came close to that point. Crawford saw her come up from the SE from a distance of several miles. He just didn't know where SE was, but he was heading in the opposite direction from it. That makes him moving to the NW and the Titanic had to be pointing northward from his detailed description. Boxhall testified that he, Murdoch and Smith went out onto the starboard bridge wing to see the berg. Why would they do that if the ship had continued to turn to port stopping about south? I'd go out onto the port wing to see it if I were there and the ship did as you say. Also, at least three other seaman testified that the berg was off the starboard quarter before it disappeared into the night. Rowe, out on the poop, testified that the ship did not appear to be under starboard helm, that is left rudder, at the time the berg passed aft of the poop. This is consistent with the helm being shifted over to the opposite direction as Olliver claimed it was. Such action would have started to check the original swing of the ship to port and started a swing to starboard after the berg passed aft of the stern. Anyone familiar with the stars would not have any difficulty finding Polaris that night, including C/O Stewart on the Californian. The issue with that one is not whether he was able to see Polaris, but whether he really took a latitude sight as claimed. Later, [/QUOTE]

Verification: In which year did the Titanic sail?