How Far South did the Titanic Reach?

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,706
543
183
Funchal. Madeira
Aaron. Here's a few facts.

When Stone and Gibson saw the rockets at 3-30am that morning , they were, according to them, on Californian's port beam. and right on the horizon bearing South. At that moment, Carpathia was SE of Boxhall in boat #2.
If these were standard distress rockets of the day rising to about 500 feet above the sea then the ship firing them was 33.5 miles away from Californian.

If Stone and Gibson were actually seeing the rockets of Carpathia right on the horizon at 3-20 am that morning and had made a mistake about how Californian was heading, then at that time, Carpathia was about 33.5 SE of her and 10 miles SE of Boxhall. This means that 22.5 miles separated Titanic and Californian.

For Californian to have been 16 miles or less from Titanic;s position at that time, the rockets would have been seen well above the horizon... not on it and if Stone and Gibson were telling the truth that Californian was heading west when they saw the rockets on her port beam, then these rockets could never have been fired by Carpathia because her rockets would have been seen to the SE, not to the South.

When Rostron saw that ship 2 point on his starboard bow, Carpathia was heading directly for Boxhall and heading North 52 West. If the Californian had been North West of the sinking Titanic and Boxhall was a mile to the NE of where she sank, then Californian would have been about quarter a point on Carpathia' starboard bow bearing North 44 West. and 32 miles away
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,156
623
273
Chicago, IL, USA
From PV Coronia:
6.16 [GMT] firing rockets – there - 'we are firing rockets' from unknown station 'here lookout for rockets'. ---> 3:06am Californian time.

From PV Mount Temple:
1.25 [NY time] M.P.A. [Carpathia] sends: 'If you are there, we are firing rockets.' ---> 3:15am Californian time.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The crew on the Californian did not pay much attention to the other ship and the fact that their ship was swinging around all night means their estimate bearings were of course not going to be accurate. There were millions of stars in the sky so their judgement of height would also be guess work. Captain Moore of the Mount Temple had been at sea for 32 years and he said: "You cannot judge by a light at sea." The Carpathia was also changing course to avoid half a dozen icebergs so their bearings were also not exact. The ships were in the general area regardless of absolute exact bearings.

The Titanic was facing the Californian almost head on, so when the bow of the Titanic moved closer to the water the rockets would burst at a lower altitude and possibly appeared closer to her decks lights further aft which glowed to them as a cluster of bright light, and when her stern rose and her bow dropped, the rockets would appear closer to the bright light. Also when the Titanic was sinking survivors saw a great volume of smoke that went up and flattened out at the top "like a mushroom" when it reached a certain height. This same effect may have affected the height of the rockets when they exploded, or possibly the burst of the rockets were blanketed by the smoke or glowed inside the smoke which gave the illusion that the rockets were bursting at a lower height to witnesses on the Californian.

I think the fact that the Mount Temple could see the Carpathia picking up survivors at the same time and they could see the Californian still north of the Carpathia and only now moving west through the ice field is certainly strong evidence that the Californian was closer than they said they were.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 22, 2003
5,156
623
273
Chicago, IL, USA
I
For Californian to have been 16 miles or less from Titanic;s position at that time, the rockets would have been seen well above the horizon
The real problem I have with your statement is that you don't quantify what "well above" means, and expect people to just accept what you are saying. Using Table 15 from Bowditch, 'Distance by Vertical Angle Measured Between Sea Horizon and Top of Object Beyond Sea Horizon,' and using height of eye 45ft, height of rocket burst 500ft, and D=16 nautical miles, you get an angle of 0° 09' for the angular height of the rocket burst above the visible horizon. That's less than 1/3 the diameter of a full moon sitting on the horizon. Clearly, for all practical purposes, rocket bursts from 16 miles away would be seen close to where the horizon would be, which itself was NOT visible that night.

By the way Alex, this is the type of verification of evidence that I was referring to in my post #16 above.
 
Oct 16, 2016
8
0
11
24
To answer Rob's post above, it's obvious that the bridge team all knew more than what they included in their testimonies. This is not surprising. Official inquiries are designed to pin blame and not to improve public safety. You learn quickly not to volunteer information because what you say will often come back to "bite" you. (Personal experience in a U.S. Coast Guard inquiry.)

Motives are more critical in understanding history than the usual facts -- dates, times, places, etc. Yet, we never really know motives because they exist only inside a single person's head. Even if someone admits a motive there is always uncertainty that the admission was fully accurate. One thing we all know is the desire to cover our mistakes. Was that the motive? Sunken ship and more than 1,500 victims is hardly something that can be swept under the rug. So, it's unlikely anyone was trying to hide the outcome of the night. But self-preservation is something altogether different. Jobs and careers were at stake. One slip of the tongue could cost a man his career that he had spent most of a working lifetime acquiring. Motive enough? We can only speculate.

But, our speculation should not be limited to the bridge team. There are so many oddities and obfuscations surrounding the Titanic sinking. Why did stories of the ship steaming for Halifax surface on both sides of the Atlantic before the truth of the sinking was known? What about that message allegedly from Phillips to his family? Why was Bride offered so much money to keep his mouth shut? How could Boxhall have heard Murdoch's report to Captain Smith when his duties forced him to be off the bridge? Why did Boxhall say he didn't see the accident, then describe it in vivid detail? Why was Olliver overlooked when he testified to the "hard a-port" helm order? Why was crew time used for the famous 11:40 o'clock time of the accident when the voyage was still being conducted on unaltered April 14th time? Why didn't somebody investigate why Barrett claimed to be forced out of a boiler room by catastrophic flooding when another survivor of that same compartment never saw any such thing and remained at his station for 20 minutes after impact? Why did the ship send two sets of distress coordinates? Why was the second (allegedly corrected) set of coordinates so far off? Why did Captain Smith begin evacuating his ship so early when it was designed to float long enough for help to arrive? Why did Titanic's compartmentalization and bilge pump system fail so miserably? Why did the official inquiries dismiss the breakup when about half the people interviewed describe what we know actually took place? Why did Lightoller and Ismay work so hard aboard Carpathia to get the surviving crew members out of the United States as quickly as possible? Why did the British inquiry libel Captain Lord? What happened to Moody after he was interviewed by a reporter in New York? And so it goes.

Please, I'm not a "Titanic Truther." I don't believe there was any dark conspiracy, switched ships, or anything of the sort. But I do think there were some deliberate efforts to confuse what actually took place that night in order to hide some unpleasant truths. Why else would so many mysteries surround what is allegedly just a simple case of run-down-an-iceberg-and-sink?. Why so many mysteries?

-- David G. Brown
Could you tell about that message allegedly from Phillips to his family please? Ive never heard
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
4,923
181
193
The story was explained at the US inquiry. Melville Stone of Associated Press gave evidence. To quote myself--

"Stone was able to explain one of the most misleading of the mysterious radio messages. During Monday 15 April, John Phillips’s father, in Godalming, England, had received a reassuring telegram. It read, ‘Making slowly for Halifax. Practically unsinkable. Don't worry.' [Author's punctuation]. Stone explained its true origin. ‘This was supposed, for an hour or more, to have come direct from Phillips, the Titanic operator. Instead of that it came from an uncle of Phillips, who lived in England, and was the docket which he fixed up in London and which he was sending to Phillips’s father to comfort him.’"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuel Halpern

George Jacub

Member
Sep 28, 2005
145
5
88
Californian clocks were 3 hours and 10 minutes behind GMT, or 1 hour 50 minutes ahead of mean time in NY. Unaltered Titanic time for April 14th was 2 hours 58 minutes behind GMT, or 2 hours and 2 minutes ahead of NY. That means that time on Titanic was 12 minutes ahead of Californian time.
No, Sam, no matter how many times you say it, that's still wrong. The difference between New York Time and Titanic time was one hour and 33 minutes, confirmed by the Titanic's three most senior surviving officers---and, by extension, the staff at the Senate Titanic hearing. Not a soul testified that the time difference was 2:02.
If the time difference on the Californian was 1 hour and 50 minutes, then the difference between the time on the Titanic and the time on the Californian was 17 minutes. In other words take the time on the Titanic and add 17 minutes and you get the time on the Californian or take the time on the Californian and subtract 17 minutes and you get the time on the Titanic.
Herbert Stone, the Californian's second officer, testified at the British Inquiry that he saw the last rocket fired at 1:40 a.m. That would be 1:23 Titanic time. The man firing the rockets, Quartermaster George Rowe, said he fired the last rocket at about 1:25 a.m.
Another amazing coincidence, Sam? Or still more confirmation of the true time difference between New York and Titanic?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,706
543
183
Funchal. Madeira
I

The real problem I have with your statement is that you don't quantify what "well above" means, and expect people to just accept what you are saying.

Sam, If you have a problem, then it's not with anything to do with the definition of "well above". If you read the meat of my post, you will see that I'm concerned with the reference point of the horizon.
You're the one that arranged for Californian to be 16 miles away from the sinking Titanic. I wrote "For Californian to have been 16 miles or less from Titanic;s position at that time," and you simply jumped in to defend your arrangement. I pointing out that if these men on Californian were seeing rockets on the horizon, they were seeing them at extreme range. The 16 mile bit was bait.;)

The distance between two object at sea... one with a height of eye of 500 feet and the other with a height of eye of 45 feet is exactly 33.4 nautical miles. Don't take my word for it. I don't have Bowditch, I have Burtons. They are now almost 70 years old but I'm sure you can still read them:



As you can also see from the above table,if someone with a height of eye of 45 feet sees something right on the horizon and his radar tell him it's 16 miles away, then that object has a height of 55 feet above sea level.
Burton's distances 001.jpg





Clearly, for all practical purposes, rocket bursts from 16 miles away would be seen close to where the horizon would be, which itself was NOT visible that night.

Really? Then how do you explain the following from captain Lord of the Californian :

"I told them it was a very strange night; it was hard to define where the sky ended and the water commenced. There was what you call a soft horizon. I was sometimes mistaking the stars low down on the horizon for steamer's lights."

Of course the horizon was vi
sible...just not hard enough to be used as an exact reference point. For your information, Sam. When you look at the horizon through binoculars on such an night as it was then, you can't see a hard line. However, your eyes automatically focus on your personal horizon. The best reference are the setting or rising stars. That's what captain Lord was talking about. he did in fact see a horizon of sorts.

In any case, the rockets we are discussing were seen at 3-30am on the morning of April, 15. Californian had not moved from where she had originally stopped. If these rockets were from Carpathia, then she was about 7 miles away from Boxhall. Right? If your claim that Californian was 16 miles away from the sinking Titanic was true, then at 3-30am, Carpathia was 16 + 7 = 23 miles away from Californian. Right? Now have another look at Burtons. From it you will find that if an observer with a height of eye of 45 feet will just see a rocket flash right on the horizon if that rocket only rises to a height of 180 feet. Are you telling us that was the maximum altitude of Carpathia's distress rockets?


By the way Alex, this is the type of verification of evidence that Sam was referring to in his post #16 above.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,706
543
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hello Aaron. You wrote:

"The crew on the Californian did not pay much attention to the other ship and the fact that their ship was swinging around all night means their estimate bearings were of course not going to be accurate."

I'm afraid that just isn't true.

If you read the entire evidence of the Officers of Californian, you will find that they received specific orders from their captain. I can assure you, these orders would have been followed to the letter.


There are two kinds of bearings taken from the bridge of a ship...relative to the bow and by sighting across a compass, the error of which is known. I presume you mean the first one-relative bearings...i.e. 'so many points on the bow or quarter.? If so, I can assure you that when a bridge officer refers to so many ' points' on the bow, you can be sure that he will be accurate to withing a few degrees either side. On her following ship, I have moved 'ahead to one side to give you an idea. In fact, on the ship in the picture, one point on each bow was in line with the foremast sampson posts.

upload_2016-10-17_21-20-26.png


Stone of the Californian said the pyrotechnics he was seeing went as high as the other ship's masthead light. The reason for that was that he was watching her through binoculars. He could use the position of the white masthead light relative to the other ship's deck lights as a guage.

" The Titanic was facing the Californian almost head on, so when the bow of the Titanic moved closer to the water the rockets would burst at a lower altitude and possibly appeared closer to her decks lights further aft which glowed to them as a cluster of bright light, and when her stern rose and her bow dropped, the rockets would appear closer to the bright light."

No Aaron. If Titanic was heading straight for Californian then those on the latter would have seen Titanic's red and green sidelights
and her white masthead light all the time she was sinking. Additionally, her accommodation lights except her bridge front cabin lights would have been shut out to an observer right ahead of her.

The Mount Temple evidence is suspect, to say the least. if we believe her captain, then she was heading northward when Californian passed her going south. If we plot in revers the evidence of Captain Rostron vis a vis Californian's movements between 8 pm and 8 30 pm then work back at 13 .5 knots, reversing Californian's course to the time she met with Mount Temple, we find that the latter was much farther north than his evidence suggested.


 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,706
543
183
Funchal. Madeira
PS: At least one officer did not think there was any problem with visibility:

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
We remarked on the weather, about its being calm, clear. We remarked the distance we could see. We seemed to be able to see a long distance. Everything was very clear. We could see the stars setting down to the horizon.|
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,156
623
273
Chicago, IL, USA
>>The distance between two object at sea... one with a height of eye of 500 feet and the other with a height of eye of 45 feet is exactly 33.4 nautical miles.<<

That is correct, but that is not what we were talking about. The question was this: given an observer with height of eye 45 ft, and some vessel 16 miles away firing rockets to a height of 500 ft, what is the angular height of the rocket burst relative to the horizon as seen by that person? My 9 minutes-of-arc number came from Bowditch Table 15. But I forgot to correct the result for dip of horizon, which for a height of eye of 45 ft is about 6.5 minutes-of-arc. Therefore, the measured angular height of the burst above a visible horizon would be 9 + 6.5=15.5 minutes-of-arc, which is about one-half the diameter of a full moon. If the Carpathia was 23 miles away and fired rockets to a height of 500 ft, then the burst of those rockets would appear to be about 8 minutes-of-arc above a visible horizon after correcting the angle in Table 15 for dip. As Capt. Lord said, the horizon was a soft horizon, "it was hard to define where the sky ended and the water commenced." Is it not obvious that something bursting as low as only 8' above where the horizon would be described as 'on the horizon' given that the horizon was not sharply defined? After all, this is only about 1/4 the diameter of a full moon.
Untitled.jpg
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,156
623
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Another thought about the "soft horizon" that night. Lookouts talked about a slight haze on the horizon. Haze is an obscuration. Since they could not tell where the sky ended and the sea began, I could easily see where that would rationalized as being a slight haze on the horizon by some of the lookouts despite the perfectly clear conditions that existed.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,156
623
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Herbert Stone, the Californian's second officer, testified at the British Inquiry that he saw the last rocket fired at 1:40 a.m. That would be 1:23 Titanic time. The man firing the rockets, Quartermaster George Rowe, said he fired the last rocket at about 1:25 a.m.
George Rowe: "I assisted the officer to fire them, and was firing the distress signals until about five and twenty minutes after 1. At that time they were getting out the starboard collapsible boats. The chief officer, Wilde, wanted a sailor. I asked Capt. Smith if I should fire any more, and he said "No; get into that boat." I went to the boat. Women and children were being passed in. I assisted six, three women and three children. The order was then given to lower the boat. The chief officer wanted to know if there were more women and children. There were none in the vicinity. Two gentlemen passengers got in; the boat was then lowered... When we left the ship the fore well-deck was awash; that is, when we pushed off from the ship. It was 1.25 when I left the bridge to get into the boat. When the boat was in the water the well deck was submerged. It took us a good five minutes to lower the boat on account of this rubbing going down."

He was then asked: "She must have sunk soon after you left?", to which he replied: "Twenty minutes, I believe."

So how long do think it was before the boat was lowered after Rowe arrived at the collapsible? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? And then 5 minutes more to lower it. That makes it perhaps 1:35 to 1:40 by Rowe's time. Then 20 minutes later the ship sank taking us close to 2am. Yet George, your final time arbiter, Mr Boxhall, said the ship sank at about 2:20am. That is also the time Mr Pitman gave for when the ship sank. Is it not obvious to you yet that Pitman and Boxhall were using a different time reference than Rowe? We know from Pitman that his watch was still on April 14th time which was set the previous night so it would be accurate at noon on April 14. In unadjusted April 14th time, the last rocket went up about 1:50am, and the ship sank at about 2:20am, about a 1/2 hour after the last rocket was fired.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,706
543
183
Funchal. Madeira
No Sam, there was no question about it. Titanic's Lookouts have nothing to do with this at all. I am talking about the three rockets seen by Gibson toward the end of the 12 to 4 am Watch. Please read the evidence:

Californian's
Apprentice Gibson:

"594. (The Solicitor-General.) .... If it was twenty minutes to four it was not very far off the beginning of dawn, was it?
- No, dawn was just breaking...7595. Had it got any lighter?
Answer: - Yes.
7596. Could you see when you saw this flash at all how far away you thought it was? Answer: - It was right on the horizon.

First if all, if dawn was just breaking and Gibson was looking south eastward through binoculars, then he would see a hard horizon...not a soft one.
Second: if he saw these flashes right on the horizon and they were standard distress signals which had risen to design height above sea level then the vessel firing these signals was at least 33.5 miles away.
Third: If the vessel firing these signals came from the RMS Carpathia, and the timing seems to bear this out, then at 3-30 am, she was about 7 miles from Boxhall and he was 26 miles from the Californian.
Fourth: If Captain Lord's navigation was correct, then Carpathia's rockets only rose to a height of about 350 feet, not 500 feet above sea level.

Bottom line: if these rockets seen from Californian were from Carpathia then Californian was most certainly a great deal farther away from the sinking Titanic than 16 miles. There can be no doubt about it.
 

George Jacub

Member
Sep 28, 2005
145
5
88
Is it not obvious to you yet that Pitman and Boxhall were using a different time reference than Rowe?
What's obvious is that the man firing the rockets said he sent off the last rocket at about 1:25 a.m. and an independent observer on a nearby ship saw the last rocket zoom into the sky at 1:23 a.m. Titanic time, confirming that New York was one hour and thirty-three minutes ahead of time on the Titanic.
The fatal problem with saying the last rocket went up at 1:50 a.m. Titanic time is that this translates to 2:07 Californian time, seven minutes AFTER Officer Stone sent a crewman to tell his Captain that he had seen a ship firing rockets, a display that, he testified, ENDED 20 MINUTES EARLIER.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,706
543
183
Funchal. Madeira
My timing differs from you by 5 minutes, George. However there are several other "time pointers" which are constantly being ignored. During the US Inquiry. Senator Smith was questioning 2nd Officer Lightoller about the sequence of events leading up to the filling and launching of lifeboats:

"Senator SMITH" How soon after that time were the orders given to put the women and children into these lifeboat?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER: I dare say about 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour.
Senator SMITH: About 10 minutes?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER: Or a quarter of an hour.
Senator SMITH: That would be 45 minutes after the impact?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER: Yes."

At he same Inquiry, 3rd Officer Pitman stated:

"5162. She was blowing off steam for three-quarters of an hour, I think."

We know that the steam was venting when Boxhall delivered his revised distress position to the wireless room

We also know from the writings of passenger Lawrence Beesley that the order to load boats 9. 11. 13 & 15 came shortly after 12-20 am. At that time, the steam was still venting. Almost immediately after that order, the first pyrotechnic was fired. Probably about 12-30 am ship time. If there had not been a clock change then the equivalent times would be as follows"

3-08 am GMT., 10-08 EST New York and 11-55 am on the SS Californian.

If there had been a 24 minute partial set back of the ship's clocks then the the equivalent times would have been:

03-52 am GMT., 10-52 am EST New York and 12-42 am on board the SS Californian.

Now compare the foregoing with the following extract from a written report by the Second officer of the Californian to Captain Lord. The date of the report is April 18, 1912:

" At about 12:45, I observed a flash of light in the sky just above that steamer."

In light of the foregoing truths extracted from the evidence of men who were actually there; let honest readers be the judges as to whether or not the clocks were adjusted before impact.

However, this thread is not about time but about distance, to be exact, it's about how far south Titanic went before she tuned. In my opinion, the answer to that is not very far if at all and most certainly not 10 miles.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,156
623
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Almost immediately after that order, the first pyrotechnic was fired. Probably about 12-30 am ship time.
There is undisputable evidence that the first distress signal was sent up after boats 7 and 5 were launched, while boat 3 was still being loaded. I agree that the order to first load the boats came about 45 minutes after the collision.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,156
623
273
Chicago, IL, USA
The fatal problem with saying the last rocket went up at 1:50 a.m. Titanic time is that this translates to 2:07 Californian time,
No it doesn't George. What I said is the last distress socket signal was sent up at about 1:50am unadjusted April 14th time. That is about 1/2 hour before the ship sank, which was at 2:20am, according to Pitman and Boxhall. 1:50am unadjusted time on Titanic translates to about 1:40am on Californian. There was a 12 minute difference in ship's time between the two vessels. If we go by Rowe's timing, which I claim was altered by half the planned adjustment amount (put back 23-24 minutes), the last rocket was fired at 1:25am and the ship sank about 1:55am.
 

George Jacub

Member
Sep 28, 2005
145
5
88
I'm confused. I used a 17 minute difference in time between the Titanic and the Californian based on the evidence, to wit:

British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 8
Testimony of Cyril F. Evans
Examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.
8924. Are you the Marconi operator on the steamship "Californian"?
- Yes.
8925. Do you remember Sunday, 14th April?
- Yes.
8935. ... What is the difference between New York time and ship's time at the place where you stopped?
- One hour and fifty-five minutes.
8936. That means one would have to add 1 hour 55 minutes to New York time to get at your ship's time at the place where you stopped?


As it turns out, 2:05 a.m. on the Californian was 2:17 a.m. unadjusted time on Titanic,

United States Senate Inquiry
Day 8
Testimony of Stanley Lord
Senator SMITH.
Will you please give the Greenwich time of your wireless message as to ice, sent to the Titanic?
Mr. LORD.
Not the Greenwich time; I can give you the New York time. The New York time is what the wireless messages are all dated. Will that do?
Senator SMITH.
Yes.
snip
Mr. LORD.
I only sent one straight to the Titanic.
Senator SMITH.
I understand; the message you sent to the Titanic at 11 o'clock on Sunday night.
Mr. LORD.
That would be 9.05 or 9.10. There is an hour and fifty minutes time between New York and my noon position on the 14th.

In either case, to translate time on the Titanic into time on the Californian, you ADD the 17 minute difference (Capt. Lord)---or 22 minute difference (Cyril Evans)-- not subtract it. To illustrate, take the accepted time that the first CQD was heard, 10:25 p.m. New York Time April 14, 1912. That translates to 11:58 p.m. Titanic time (using the accurate 1:33 time differential) April 14, and 12:15 a.m. April 15 on the Californian.

Oh, and to prove that the time difference between New York and the Titanic was two hours plus, you cite the evidence of Officers Pitman and Boxhall, both of whom testified it was 1:33. Okay...
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2003
5,156
623
273
Chicago, IL, USA
There is an hour and fifty minutes time between New York and my noon position on the 14th.
Capt. Lord was correct. His noontime position was given in evidence as 42° 05'N, 47° 25'W. If you look up the time of local apparent noon on 14 April 1912 at 47° 25'W longitude you will find that it occurred at 15:09:57 GMT, which is 3 hours 10 minutes ahead of Californian time. In NY it was 10:09:57, or 1 hour 50 minutes behind Californian time.
At noon on April 14, Titanic was close to 44° 30'W longitude, having traveled 1549 miles since departing the Daunt's Rock LV outside of Queenstown. At that location on 14 April 1912, local apparent noon (12:00 Titanic) came at 14:58 GMT which is 2 hours 58 minutes ahead of Titanic time. In NY it was 09:58, or 2 hours 2 minutes behind Titanic time. For Titanic's clocks to have been 1 hour 33 minutes ahead of NY (3 hours 27 minutes behind GMT) at the time of collision and foundering as later claimed, then her clocks had to have been put back sometime between noon and the time of collision by some 29 minutes. Furthermore, if you accept that her clocks were 1 hour 33 minutes ahead of NY time at the time of collision, then you have to believe that the last rocket fired from Titanic occurred almost a full hour before the ship sank. And if you accept Harold Brides evidence that Capt. Smith released his wireless operators when Carpathia and Franfurt were last contacted, which can easily be traced to 11:55pm NY time, then that would have corresponded to 1:28am on Titanic assuming a 1 hour 33 minute time difference. That is about 52 minutes before the ship sank if you accept that the ship sank at 2:20am Titanic time.
Oh, and to prove that the time difference between New York and the Titanic was two hours plus, you cite the evidence of Officers Pitman and Boxhall, both of whom testified it was 1:33.
Pitman said that his watch was showing time that was last set the night before so that it would be accurate at noontime on Sunday the 14th of April. That means it had to be set 2 hours and 58 minutes behind GMT if it was to show 12:00 at noon on the 14th. In my opinion, the extra 29 minutes came about when trying to figure out how the ship was able to reach a longitude of 50° 14'W at the time of collision, which was taken as 11:46pm according to Boxhall who worked up the distress position. Remove those extra 29 minutes of steaming, and set the collision time back to 11:40pm instead of 11:46pm, and you will find the vessel just 2 miles north of the wreck site, not 13 west of the wreck site location as everyone at the time believed.