True, Julian. But then, we must completely bin every account by eyewitnesses who saw Titanic sink after the lights went out.Hi Jim,
You might want to re-visit this tomorrow!
Witnesses often provide a recollection of what they think they ought to have seen, rather than what they actually saw, especially when latterly they find out what they did not know or see for sure at the time. The circumstances of Titanic's sinking, and all that involved, was not conducive to accurate witness accounts.
Anyway, enough for tonight for me.
Hello Robert.Again , I am directing this to what I call the "real sailors" on these forums , such as Sam and Jim.
Would you say that there is ever evidence of "total darkness" at sea ?
I post this from an incident in my brief sea duty.
There was a night with a heavy overcast.
No moon , stars or horizon could be seen.
This seemed to be to me to be total darkness.
Or was this just a case of my eyes not being "dark adapted" and it really couldn't be considered as being "total darkness " ?
This is another case of a caveat to experienced Mariners by an inexperienced rank layman. :--)
At least in the case of the Titanic survivors in the lifeboats , the night was very clear, even to the point of "seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon".
Hello Mike.Its looks to me like what ever Lord have to say in the British inquiry. Lord Mersey has made his mind before the start of the inquiry that captain Lord will be found guilty whether you like or not! As IF ONLY Lord had a top line Barrister for his defence things would of be very different were,, Mersey would never got away with some of his outrageous statements followed by no re-hearing allowed. One can some up the inquiry as a farce for the real true. An scape goat indeed!
Hello Jim and once more thanks -Hello Robert.
Never underestimate yourself. If you have been to sea in a ship in any capacity then you were a "real sailor."
As far as I know, Sam has never been to sea, consequently, as the old saying goes, you have "squeezed more salt water out of your sea-boot socks" than Sam has sailed over. I fear that your observation regarding setting stars will somehow be twisted by non sailors.
Hello Julian.I agree with Jim's post above, in response to Mike's post 437, though neither have anything to do with the title of this thread.
The only corroborated evidence of where The Californian was prior to Titanic hitting the ice berg is the 5.35pm NYT message send by Captain Lord to Captain Japha of The Antillian also of the Leyland Line of 3 bergs seen at 6.30pm ships time on the evening of the 14th April. The original Marconigram Service Form in Evan's and Captain Lord's own hand survives (somewhere) and has been photographed and is in Booth's book.
The 42 3 as opposed to 42 5 latitude is only a matter of some 2 miles, and bearing in mind Captain Lord was basing all this on noon sightings on the 14th is not particularly significant in itself. The ships log and hydrographic report gave 42 5, but The Antillian message on the evening of 14th, and a message from The Californian to the Olympic (wireless operator Ernest Moore via his USA Inquiry testimony) give 42 3.
As Sam has pointed out many times, there are lots of reasons for accepting the 42 3 latitude, but the 2 mile difference does not solve the puzzle.
I have been quite keen on working backwards from when The Californian got alongside Carpathia, and I have been equally struck by the Louis Ogden pics of The Californian alongside and how far away The Californian was in the well known pic of his that forms the header to this thread, given the limits of photography at the time, and significantly the album note being 8am, not 8.30am.
Groves and Captain Moore can see the Carpathia on the other side of the ice field - why does't Captain Lord see the Carpathia earlier across the ice field, and Captain Rostron not see The Californian earlier across the ice field ?
Oh, I'm quite able to look after myself, Rob. However, I appreciate your warning. Perhaps you should spread your wisdom a little wider?Constantly beating someone over the head because of your perception of their experiences can be dangerous thing.
The little boy wasn't a qualified, experienced tailor but knew the Emperor had no clothes on.
I fully understood what you meant Robert. I was simply pointing out an error in your perception. I never got my sea boot socks wet either because I stayed out of deep waterHello Jim and once more thanks -
By being a ''real sailor'' I meant that I considered my self more as just a specialist in the field of the electronics equipment , in particular the surface search and air search radars on the ship. ET's and RD's in particular.
I considered the ''real sailors'' as those who regularly stood watches ''24/7'' and performed duties in navigation and the running of the ship.
In particular the officers and enlisted men on the bridge. QM',s in particular.
The comment on the ''seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon'' was taken from something I read about reports of what the Titanic survivors in the lifeboats saw while waiting for relief.
And I never got my socks wet so I never ''squeezed salt water out of my sea-boot socks.'' Matter of fact, I never wore any things
you might consider ''sea boots'' only during ''Boot Camp''.
Be careful, Steven/ Claiming to actually have witnessed a dark night at sea might be construed as wish-craft and you could be burned at the alter of the Goddess Myth. the "mythtress" of many of those posting on this site.Binoculars gather light - even in the "dark ages" of 1912. There is no such thing as total darkness in the open air. At sea, on a dark moonless night with no wind or swell, the sea appears black compared to the sky. If the stars were setting or rising right on the horizon then you have a distinct marker. At the scene of the disaster, survivors were able to see the sinking ship outlined in black after the lights went out. You would know all this if you had spent 10 minutes aboard a ship on such a night.
I was always amazed just how bright it could be at sea at night by just starlight. I often had to go out when the the ship was blacked out to take mag temps on our flare lockers just above the fantail. After a few minutes to let your eyes adjust it was something to see. The conditions described the night of Titanic were very much the same. At least as far as starlight goes. Robert if you went to sea you were a sailor...you just weren't an AB. But even if you never went to sea and were in the Navy I would still you call you a sailor. My sister retired as an MCPO (E-9). 28 years. She was an airdale and before the time women were allowed on ships. Never set foot on a ship. But she had as much or more of a right to be called a sailor in the US NAVY than I did. I don't think they had E-8 and E-9's when you were in.
Step into my parlour said the spider to the fly?In the meantime, since I know you were a seaman, perhaps you might like to contribute to this debate in a positive way?
Fine, Rob! I will try and answer the difficult bit.Step into my parlour said the spider to the fly?
I have two questions that need an answer. One I've had for a long time and one has only recently occurred to me.
The first, as I have posted some time ago, supports a greater distance between the two vessels, Titanic and Californian, which is as follows:
If the Titanic was the vessel seen approaching the Californian and was clearly visible doing so for a good length of time before 23:40 Titanic time, how come there is no report of any vessels being sighted on a reciprocal from the Titanic during the same period. The only reports of vessels in the area occur after impact?
Having said that, my next question is more important. In the matter of the Californian, distance is irrelevant. Its like asking how far away was your hand from catching the falling vase? 6 inches or 6 feet, it makes no difference. We still watched as the vase hit the floor.
We know how close the Californian was. Close enough to the Titanic to see her socket signals detonate in the sky.
The question that needs answering is not how far apart we're they but what did Stone think he was seeing at the time.
You, Jim, describe Stone's treatment at the British Inquiry as bullying or harassment. I disagree. The questioners then are having the same difficulty we are now in understanding how Stone interpreted what he was seeing. He (Stone) says, and we all agree they were white rockets. The question is, what did he interpret them to be? One or two could be a company signal, maybe. But after the third, fourth, fifth, sixth? What then? They were fired at regular intervals and even if we suggest a rate of one every 7 minutes that's still well over half an hour of doing absolutely diddly squat other than continue to send a flashing light call up that hadn't worked at any stage up to that point so there is zero reason to believe it would at any stage there after.
So that's the real question we need to answer. What did Herbert Stone interpret those signals to mean? Sadly we will never now what went through his mind during those fateful hours but within it lies the answer to the whole story.
That's my contribution.