Last sighting: C.E Bell

[Arun Vajpey]

I now hope you see how important it is not to rely on a single eyewitness.

I have always done that Sam. In fact, it is my habit to collate statements from all available survivor witnesses and attempt to form a coherent scenario if at all possible. I have mentioned that in several of my posts in different threads, for example the dynamics of the collision (or allison, if you prefer) as seen/heard by Lookouts Fleet & Lee, QM Hichens and QM Olliver. In fact, a collation of their statements is what makes one question the accuracy of related statements made by the fourth survivor (eventually) on the bridge, 4/O Boxhall.

Having said that, there are instances where there might have been only one survivor statement to an event, like perhaps most famously Lightoller's gangway door order to Nichols (of course, Lowe claimed that he was 'aware' of that or something), Johnstone's "star tip" ostensibly by the boatswain, Barrett's claim that Nichols was in charge of Lifeboat #13 on A-deck etc. With such things, one has to conjecture based on circumstantial evidence like others' statements, which you did with the star tip one and I accepted. I also think that as the sinking progressed and the people on board - both passengers and crew - began to realize the uncertainty of their fates, more and more conflicting statements crept in, making creating a collective scenario later that much more difficult.

And despite your recent opinion to the contrary, I continue to believe that Bill Wormstedt, Tad Fitch and George Behe have considered both sides of the coin as far as survivor statements regarding lifeboats are concerned while writing and later revising their Lifeboat Launching Sequence. That brings me to the validity of James' quote in the previous post:

Indeed Sam, like the fragmented pieces of a puzzle, eyewitness accounts provide only a partial picture of the sinking

Looking at that in another way, when there are several statements about an event including many conflicting ones, the way one collectively interprets them into a seemingly logical conclusion can be different. Over 110 years down the line, neither "side" can categorically prove their case unless a Rashomon style hearing can be organized, which obviously is fantasy. But as you say yourself at the end of Part 2 of your recent Lifeboat article, opinions that the other side "overlooked, misinterpreted or did not consider" evidence can swing both ways. From a personal perspective, I have always had and continue to have great regard for your Titanic work, including the web page, articles, books, illustrations etc, but as things stand at this time, am unable to agree with your conclusions about the lifeboat launching sequence. The reasons are out of place in this different thread and as I mentioned before, I have the habit of reading and slowly re-reading your articles and try to form step by step mental pictures of what is being said. You have always been gentlemanly to me and any others who have occasionally disagreed with you as opposed to the rather crass and self-indulgent expressions of certain others.

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Despite all the criticisms and blind loyalty to a certain set of authors, Sam Halpern's article stands as a thorough and important piece of investigative work, proving earlier miscalculations and examining fresh interpretations based on eyewitness testimonies previously ignored by those intent on pushing a preconceived timeline instead of relying on evidence that's suggested by all documentation, not just that which supports a favored theory.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

intent on pushing a preconceived timeline instead of relying on evidence that's suggested by all documentation, not just that which supports a favored theory

Exactly THAT has been done for a quite a long time now, long before Sam himself decided to write this article. And I am NOT talking about the "set of authors" to whom you refer so disdainfully.

As I said, it is a matter of opinion and each to his/her own.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

My comment to you Arun about not depending on a single eyewitness was in reference to Scott and what you said.

>>>Lifeboat #10 could have been one of the "port afterend" lifeboats that he was referring to but unless he had moved forwards, he could not have seen Lifeboat #4 (which was on A-deck) or Collapsible D, which were both forward boats anyway. But Scott did move forward at some stage because he saved himself by sliding down the falls of Lifeboat #4 after it was lowered.<<<

I then quoted from the testimony of Ranger who confirmed that that the falls they slid down from were those of boat station 16, not 4, after seeing boat 4 come back to the ship.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

but as things stand at this time, am unable to agree with your conclusions about the lifeboat launching sequence. The reasons are out of place in this different thread

For the record, I am not seeking your or anyone else's agreement on anything.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

My comment to you Arun about not depending on a single eyewitness was in reference to Scott and what you said.

Understood. I guess I used your comment as a cue to say what I wanted to say.

I am not seeking your or anyone else's agreement on anything.

Sure. Perhaps, 'agree' was not the most suitable word but I could not think of anything else at the time. What I meant was that in matters like this - and in forums such as this one in general - people tend to agree or disagree with certain comments made by others. It is one of the ways in which a discussion thread can progress; you should know - there have been several very long threads in the past where the discussion has gone on and on based largely on you, me and most of the rest disagreeing with a certain former member.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Despite all the criticisms and blind loyalty to a certain set of authors

What "blind loyalty"? Despite what you might believe, I assure you that I am able to make up my own mind after reading and analyzing something; moreover, I have already sold the Cadillac that those authors bought me for appreciating their work.

 

[James Murdoch]

Don't forget the free dive to the wrecksite they gifted you Arun, must publish all conflicts of interest

 

[yotsuya]

Indeed Sam, like the fragmented pieces of a puzzle, eyewitness accounts provide only a partial picture of the sinking. As historian Eric Hobsbawm once quipped, "history is not what happened, but what survives in the archives and in the memories of those who were there to witness it."
In the absence of corroboration, the truth is but a mirage.

That is so true. History is really a puzzle and the trick is learning how to fit the pieces together. We rarely have the exactness of photos. What history often is is a painting.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I guess I used your comment as a cue to say what I wanted to say.

OK, I understand. If you, or anyone, would like to discuss my recent article, let's take that discussion to the thread Lifeboats, Launch Times, List and Trim Parts 1 & 2