Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jim Currie, post: 109343, member: 144215"] Hi Sam! You actually pointed me to professional evidence (perhaps not directly given but not all evidence is evident) which stated that both Navigating officers believed the vessel was pointing west. They were professionals so why ignore them? You then compared the evidence of amateurs - a science teacher, a lady?, an amateur yachtsman and a steward. Why should a science teacher be any more reliable in his direction estimation? What type of science did he teach? The lady, in fact refers directly to the Pole Star buried in the Northern Lights with an altitude of about 42 degrees. The yachtsman is completely useless as a witness (except for his barber's pole sighting). He states "We started right off from the port side of the boat directly straight off from her about midships, on the port side, right directly north, I think it would be because the northern lights appeared where this light we had been looking at" (The same man stated he thought Hitchens was raving about seeing a light or buoy). This would suggest the ship was actually heading east. As for the steward; you said it yourself -'he just didn't know where SE was'. Regarding survivors: they were all fairly close to each other in little pockets. I suspect they all turned towards Carpathia's and Boxhall's flares and rockets a bit before Carpathia's steaming lights would be seen clearly at extreme range of about 9 miles. Perhaps not too long after Titanic finally sank say about 0300hrs. As for professionals: if, as he claimed (and why wouldn't he?) that he, Boxhall rowed the No.1 E. boat round the stern to just abaft the starboard beam. then rowed 3/4 mile away to the NE; it is hardly likely he would row away at an angle. If the ship was heading north as you say then he could not have rowed to the NE but to the SE. This was a highly trained navigator and would know every star in sight (no pun intended). Why ignore this? The No.6 boat was on the port side - the lights were on the port bow. Hitchens rowed directly out from the side of the ship first for just over half a mile then lay on his oars before heading for the mystery lights. The only indication of north is the Aurora. Only Peuchin saw the ship sink and saw the Aurora. Since he saw the ship then the Aurora he must have been facing north and his boat the opposite way. It wasn't until later that he changed his rowing position. I still would like to know the mechanism whereby Titanic stopped swinging with the current - regardless of how exactly she ended-up. As far as the bridge wing gathering is concerned - the vessel was travelling - let's say 37.5 feet/second when she hit the ice. OK, she may have been 'free-wheeling' with the props stopped giving a bit of drag but she was still belting along and the ice was moving rapidly down the starboard side. I can easily imagine the instinctive reaction would be to rush over to the side as this monumental bit of frozen water crunched its way down the side. Additionally; the best place to actually see it would have been abaft the beam as it passed through the glare of the ships lights. As Lord said 'you can never mistake these ships'. Passenger evidence suggests it passed very close -ice on the well deck and ice on the outside rims of portholes. I'm afraid you would have been disappointed Sam if you had gone to the port side. Given the angle and speed of turn; I would suspect the offending ice would have been 3 or four ship lengths away to the NE with the glare of ships lights between before there would be sufficient line of sight. If the lookouts couldn't see it in complete darkness ahead, I don't think anyone would see it after it passed astern out of the glare of the ship's lights -no matter what side they were standing. I am still having trouble with understanding why Rowe -at his position on the poop could have any notion as to what direction the helm was in. Actually, if, as I suspect, the engines were gathering speed towards full astern together at that moment of time - there would have been tremendous cavitation as the blades attempted to overcome the forward momentum. Those on board would have felt the unmistakable shuddering and vibration which would slowly abate at first then more rapidly until settling down as the blades bit into solid water. The rudder would have very little effect until the vessel was stopped and started going astern. During this time, the rudder should have been midship to lessen the turning effect and give maximum effect to the stopping action. To bring the ship's head back to it's former heading, slow ahead port and continuing astern starboard would have done the trick without any appreciable forward momentum. No other rudder would have been necessary. All great fun! Talk to you later, Jim. [/QUOTE]

Verification: In which year did the Titanic sail?