Lifeboats Don't Lie

Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
>> Your right, Game Over!<<

No, Samuel. You can't live with the truth.
The map is plain for all to see.

You haven't correct the myriad mistakes in your previous article, I notice, which shows you are prepared to live in error.

It's "You're right," by the way - just as the British Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) were right in 1992 when they concluded that the Californian and Titanic probably couldn't see each other.

You claim to speak of navigational flaws, but you don't point them out, because you can't.

We remember you posting about the Titanic steaming north of track.

Except she sank three miles south of it.

So if you are absenting yourself, good luck to you.

Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
Hi Dave!

>>If you're still wondering how or why the lifeboats ended up south of Titanic's track<<

They ended up far too the south of the wreck position too, Dave!!

I think you need to look at that map again.


Carpathia intercepts lifeboats in around 41 40 N.

You don't need a current, you need an outboard to get lifeboats that far south.

That's three miles south of the wreck - which is the product of the Titanic drifting for two hours 40 minutes when it sinks at 2.20am.

I'm not surprised you don't understand this, but others do.

It is not possible for current to pull a lifeboat from 41 46 down to 41 40 - particularly if the occupants are strenously pulling the other way. It is You who say to the north.

That is demonstrably ridiculous.

Don't forget Crawford said he was 3 or 4 miles from the Carpathia when he saw it arrive. At 4am, he says.

Boxhall was alongside at 4.10am.

So you can put lifeboat 8, the furthest one away towards the Mystery Ship light, at a maximum radius of just four miles away from boat 2.

It is plain to me that you don't understand the first thing about this situation.

BTW, you are correct that the icefield was running North to South. It was the barrier in front of the Titanic, approaching from the east.

Boxhall saw that Mystery Ship to the west (see article). He thought it had "probably gotten into the ice." Can you comprehend that?

And can you understand that your current theory, which is also your latest theory, should have brought hundreds and hundreds of bodies down to the Carpathia...?

She saw only one body. Probably slipped overboard from a lifeboat to lighten it, if the truth be told.

She did not see bodies, floating en masse "like a flock of swimmers asleep," because she did not go far enough NORTH.


Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
Hi even more to Dave Billnitzer!

Thanks for posting this, Dave:

Senator SMITH. Did you see any more of that light than you have now described?
Mr. CRAWFORD. No. At daybreak it seemed to disappear. We came around and came back.

You see, you keep ignoring the elephant in your living room.


Your case is that the lifeboats, which could perfectly plainly see the Mystery Ship, pulled to the north because that is where the Californian was, and you say the Californian was the Mystery Ship.

But the sun comes up after 4am, when those lifeboats can see the Carpathia. First boat alongside at 4.10am.

Lifeboats have been pulling for three hours towards a Mystery Ship estimated as five miles away. Crawford tells us he made considerable progress.

You say that ship is the Californian.

But the Californian was stationary and did not move until 6am, two hours after daylight.

The fact that witnesses such as Crawford, in the lead lifeboat towards that vessel, couldn't see it even more closely at 4am than they could at 1am when he says they put off, is just another proof that the Mystery Ship was not the Californian.

It should have been there, because the Californian had not moved, but instead it had disappeared.

Here's a scattering of people queuing up to render Dave's argument ridiculous:


AB George Symons
11712 Did you row towards the light that you had mentioned? – We were rowing for the light.
The light bearing roughly on our port beam when we were rowing away from the ship.
11715 Did you appear to be catching it up at all? – No I thought my own self she was gradually going away from us.

Quartermaster Robert Hichens
1183 Could you tell at all whether the light was moving or whether at was still? – The light was MOVING, gradually disappearing. We did not seem to get no nearer to it.
1184 As I understand you, it seemed to get further away from you? – Yes, Sir.

Lookout Fred Fleet
We pulled for it, but we did not seem to get any nearer to it... Senator Smith: How close could you get to it? Fleet: She was GETTING AWAY off... (US p.326)

Able Seaman Frank Osman
Senator Burton: When did you last have a sight of that light? - About an hour afterwards.
What do you think about it? Did it sail away? - Yes, sir; she sailed right away. (US p.539)

Able Seaman William Lucas
1804. You saw nothing more of the vessel to which those lights belonged? – No; the light went further away every time we looked at it.

Night Watchman James Johnson:
3503. Did this light seem to get fainter or did it disappear suddenly?–When we got away it disappeared altogether.

Quartermaster George Rowe:

Senator Burton: Do you think there was a sailing boat there? Rowe: Yes, sir.
Sen. Burton: And was she going away from you?
Rowe: Toward daylight the wind sprung up and she sort of hauled off from us. (US p.524)

Able Seaman Edward Buley:

There was a ship of some description there when she struck (this “when she struck” is a lazy phrase: Buley was “sitting in the mess reading when she struck” in his own evidence [p.603 US] and he first saw the light “when turning the boats out” after midnight [p.612])… and she PASSED right by us. We thought she was COMING to us; and if she had come to us, everyone could have boarded her. You could see she was a steamer. She had her steamer lights burning…
Senator Fletcher: How far away was she?
Buley: Three miles, sir, I should judge... No; we could not see anything of her in the morning when it was daylight. She was stationary all night; I am very positive for about three hours she was stationary, and then she MADE TRACKS.
….Senator Fletcher: Did you see that ship before you were in the water?
Buley: Yes, sir; I saw it from the ship. That is what we told the passengers. We said, "There is a steamer coming to our assistance." That is what kept them quiet, I think.
Senator Fletcher: Did she come toward you bow on?
Buley: Yes, sir; bow on toward us; and then she stopped, and the lights seemed to go right by us.
Senator Fletcher: If she had gone by you, she would have been to your stern?
Buley: She was stationary there for about three hours, I think, off our port, there, and when we were in the boat we all made for her, and she went by us. The northern lights are just like a searchlight, but she disappeared… (US p.611)

Keep it coming, Dave. I'm getting lots of private emails, and you're doing a helluva job. Sulking is for others!

712 people, and not one of them made it to the stationary Californian the whole morning! Isn't it amazing...

Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
No, but really, I've been totally chuckling over that bodies suggestion.

That the lifeboats were dragged south because of a supercharged current... even though they were pulling against it to the north.

Yet they still managed to spectacularly lose a race against 1,500 dead individuals.

Who weren't pulling any oars at all.

Absolutely priceless!
Aug 15, 2005
Darwen, United Kingdom
Just ignore them, Senan.
It's what you know and can prove that is upsetting them.

"Yet they still managed to spectacularly lose a race against 1,500 dead individuals."

This settles the argument, if you ask me.
And before someone says "Well we weren't!", I already knew you'd say it.

Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
Actually the current drove the Titanic bodies north and east initially. This is a Gulf Stream effect.

You can see this from the longitude/latitude reports of the search vessels, if you understand longitude/latitude.

16962 The Solicitor-General: But as you understood the matter and understand it now, does that ice tend to be moved by the
current southerly?
Boxhall – No, it did not strike me that it would be moving southerly I have never heard of ice so far south as that before, and I have invariably found that the Gulf Stream is much stronger there than the Labrador Stream is.

The Labrador current is what drives ice to the south. It is an odd coincidence that right about where the Titanic sank is where it meets, and loses out to, the Gulf Stream - which drives all the way to Europe and warms Ireland, even though we are in a higher latitude than parts of Canada.

Captain Moore, heading to the erroneous SOS position, said he had perhaps 'a little of the Gulf Stream with her (Mount Temple) too.'

Here's another quote from Boxhall, a man Dave no doubt loves to hate, along with Captain Lord:

Senator Newlands: How about the ice in the locality in which you placed it on the chart?
Was it likely to drift; and if so, in what particular direction?
Boxhall: Yes; we should expect it to drift to the northward and to the eastward.
Senator Newlands: And not toward the south?
Boxhall: Not to the southward, as a rule; not in the Gulf Stream.
Senator Newlands: So that, as you proceeded along the [New York] track after you had charted this ice, your assumption would be that the ice would drift farther away from your track rather than drift toward it?
Boxhall: More to the northward and eastward; yes, sir.

Since we are talking about latitude 43 (wreck site latitude), here's what US Oceanographer Knapp says:

"The Labrador Current, which brings both berg and field ice down past Newfoundland, sweeps across the [Grand] banks in a generally south to southwest direction, flowing more westerly on its surface as it approaches the warm Gulf Stream water in about latitude 43º, with a set of about 12 miles a day.
The speed of the Gulf Stream drift at its northern edge is only about 6 miles a day at the fiftieth meridian and its depth is probably less than 300 feet.

So you can see, Dave, that your current theory - a flailing guess to try to avoid denying Rostron - is wholly WRONG.


I am afraid you will have to say that Rostron "must have been mistaken."


Inger Sheil

Feb 9, 1999
Slurs based on nationality are not tolerated on this board. Nor, for that matter, are ad hominems based on regional origins.

That is why the last two posts have been removed.

ETA: If you find a post objectional on the basis that it has violated the rules of the board, report it to the moderators for action. Do not take matters into your own hands and post in retaliatory fashion.
Mar 22, 2003
Chicago, IL, USA
The dead bodies were there, totally or partially submerged, but, in the choppy seas, it was now almost impossible to sight them, as white lifejackets would have an appearance similar to that of the thousands of small pieces of floating ice or white-painted wreckage. A dead body floats almost submerged.
No, that is not from me. It was from Sir James Bisset, former 2/O Carpathia and ex-Commodore of the Cunard Line.
The position where I left the wreckage was 41º 33’ N., 50°, 1’ W.
Now that came from Capt. Stanley Lord. Hmmm! Senan had the wreck site at 41° 43'N, 49° 56'W. Capt. Lord had the wreckage at 41º 33’ N., 50° 1’ W. And Capt. Lord also said:
11.20 proceeded on course N. 59, W. by compass.
Hmmm! Titanic sank about 2:20 AM, and Californian leaves wreckage at 11:20 AM. Titanic sank in latitude 41° 43'N and Californian leaves area of wreckage estimated to be at 41° 33'N, a good 10 miles south of the wreck site about 9 hours after the sinking. Let's see, 10 miles south in 9 hours is a drift of 1.1 nautical miles per hour to the southward. But I thought the average current for that region went north and eastward. Mr. Boxhall said so.? Didn't he?

And what about hydrographer Knapp? Didn't he also say:
An ice-field arriving at the edge of the Gulf Stream drift [about 43° N taken from his other statement] finds itself impelled less and less to southward and more and more to eastward and north-eastward.
So what was all this pack ice doing as far south as 41° 33'N? How did it ever get there? It was supposed to be moving to the E or NE. Yes? No?

Mr. Knapp:
but a deeply floating iceberg may continue to plow southward into the warm east-flowing current and end its career south of latitude 40º by melting and breaking up. The reason for this is that the cold, south-moving current actually under-runs the warm surface water.
OK, so the cold Labrador under-runs the warm Gulf Stream and takes those deep draft icebergs along with it south of latitude 40°N. That makes sense. But if it did under-run the Gulf Stream that April in 1912 at the latitudes we are concerned with then why was the water temperature at the surface measured by the Californian reported to be below freezing (28°F at midnight and 31°F at noon on Monday)? The field ice should have been drifting off to the NE with the warmer surface water of the Gulf Stream? But the surface water was below freezing. And not only that, Capt. Lord had even said
But in the Arctic current you always get cold water, even if there is not any ice.
According to the information he sent to Senator Smith, he got his ship into cold water (sorry if it sounds like a pun) since 4 PM on April 14th well before he even saw any ice. Where was the Gulf Stream? Could it be that it was further south that April? Could it be that the Labrador was stronger than usual that April pushing all that ice that far south for that time of the year?

Oh well. I'm sure Senan will find some explanation for all this drift nonsense. I got better things to do.

Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
So Dave Billnitzer ignores the elephant in his living room and resorts to the type of stuff that gets his post zapped, "folks."

Did a lot of playing to the gallery, but actually he didn't have any gallery at all. Because the homely "folks" to whom he appealed can read a map.

The other post that was zapped was not mine.

I don't suppose we'll see Dave again, because he can't live with facts.

He also rather transparently prepared for his retreat a little earlier by claiming he was becoming "bored" by the subject.

Yet this is a man who actually maintains a website on the so-called 'Californian Incident,' one that I am told contains reckless statements and absurdities.

Anytime you want to come back Dave, crawling under the legs of that elephant you can't see, we will have a lot of entertainment in hearing from you.

Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
Hi Samuel!

>>No, that is not from me. It was from Sir James Bisset, former 2/O Carpathia and ex-Commodore of the Cunard Line.<<

James Bisset's book was ghost-written in 1959.

Invalid, and an academically lame suggestion.

You are suggesting Bisset, nearly half a century after the fact, could see bodies masquerading as ice, while both Captain Lord and Rostron gave sworn evidence in 1912 of not seeing bodies.

I think you are completely out on a limb again, Sam... no pun intended.

But that's where those pathologically-addicted to the belief that the Californian was the Mystery Ship will always find themselves.


You should know, of course Sam (you should know!) that colliding currents will have different effects at different depths. Surface current is one thing.

* You know surface current will take a ball in one direction.

* A very large mass with thousands of miles of momentum behind it is not buoyed in the same way.

If it has thousands of tons to its mass and nine-tenths underwater, I can quite see why ice will continue south.

Some things are harder to slow. Ice has seasons. A ball or a body is much more prey to surface current.

Does this make sense to you, Sam?

It is not very complicated.

I am fairly sure it sounds reasonable to the vast majority on this site.

The fact is that the rescuers and would-be rescuers didn't see any bodies in the vicinity where the lifeboats were picked up.

The fact is that the search vessels saw them later being buoyed to the north and east.

Do you say that the recovery ships' logs have been tampered with?

Do you think - it seems you do - that Bisset is telling the truth while Rostron is lying through his teeth about bodies while gratefully accepting the Congressional Medal of Honour?

That, I respectfully suggest, is another chucklefest.

Nobody else saw bodies. Officer Boxhall of the Titanic was on the Carpathia's bridge after sun-up and didn't see them.

You should look at that map again.

41 43 is where the wreck is. Its location is east of the position given by Californian for its departure for Boston.

You would know, if you knew, the evidence, that the Californian offered to search "down to leeward."

Of course, the man that Anti-Lordites revere as a whistleblower, Third Officer Groves, claimed he saw three bodies on an icefloe.

Turned out they were seals. But they were looking for them, by his evidence. If they saw them but pretended not to, then I think ol' whistleblower would have said so in the witness box, don't you?

He talked plenty, that boy. Despite being asleep and below decks at all material times during the night.

A bit like you, Sam, previously asserting that the Mystery Ship was 11 miles away - a nice pluck from the air - when the totality of Titanic evidence puts her at five to six miles.

I'm sorry. I believe all those people, trained mariners among them, on the spot in 1912. I reject your assertion and I do so seeing your track record.

Sam, I know you claim you have "better things to do," but would you like to disembarrass yourself by agreeing with what Captain Rostron testified as to how and where he encountered that first lifeboat?

A lifeboat that did not sit on its oars, as Dave Billnitzer believes among his basket of nostrums, but had four men rowing by Boxhall's evidence?

If you agree with that, all is over.
If you avoid the question, that's fine - live in the dark.

On this thread, you said Boxhall's was a port boat but you are obviously unaware that he transformed himself into a starboard boat by pulling around the ship!

15457. With some difficulty you rowed round to the starboard side of the ship?
Boxhall – Yes, round the stern.
15458. What did you do when you got round to the starboard side?
– Well, I stayed round on the starboard side, probably about 200 feet away from the ship. I found there was a little suction and I decided that it was very unwise to have; gone back to the ship, so I pulled away.

You know, that is just a meaningless straw, but I put it there to show that you are always making ill-informed assertions because you just don't know the evidence well enough.

Not that the evidence is as precise, clear or extensive as it should be - but that is the fault of Inquiries that didn't really want to find out the map and overall position. Why not?

But surely you accept, Sam, as Dave Billnitzer cannot appear to grasp, that if one rows a lifeboat - no matter which way a current is flowing, one will have no difficulty in getting away from a floating ball?

They all rowed away from the ship.

The bodies, ahem, went down with the ship.


You can see the map, I take it - and that Californian's stop position is 21 miles from the wreck site, not from the more southerly lifeboat pick-up point.

Mike Poirier

Dec 12, 1999
Hello Senan
Well, after reading your article, you have certainly presented us with more thought-provoking and controversial material.
Your chum
Mike- the Anti-Lordite who is always willing to look at the other side of the argument.
Jul 9, 2000
Easley South Carolina
Ethnic slurs, baiting about how people "can't deal with facts" personal seems like it's all happening right here. I don't know what it is about Californian that brings out the worst in people on both sides of the debate and I can't say as I really care anymore. Either we keep this discussion civil or we won't be having this discussion at all.

Let's make one thing clear: The points in controversey are fair game for attack. The person making those points is not.

Keep it clean, gentlemen.
Jan 21, 2001
I would still like to know who are the "(fewer and fewer) revisionists" referred to in Senan's opening thesis statement, who "no longer" claim the Californian to be Titanic's Mystery Ship. It would be interesting to compare their reasoning to Senan's.

Is there a list of citations from said revisionists which historians can cross-check, or was that opening statement simply hyperbole intended to create the impression that we should be convinced by this article (along with others)?

David Billnitzer

Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
Dave, keep looking at the map, man!

See Californian 21 nautical miles from the wreck site!

See the Carpathia course, as true today, as it was then!

See Rostron's position 20 miles from the SOS position when he encountered the flare of lifeboat 2, "practically dead ahead on the port bow."

I can give examples of the fewer and fewer - if you look on another thread you'll see the latest author doesn't want to engage.

But I am not going to be drawn into a distractionary skirmish.

I know why you're trying to avoid both this guy


and the salient points raised by the map.

You are trying to drag in a tag-team.

Anything to help shove those elephants out of the way!

The public can see that you aren't dealing with the facts.

I submit that it is because you can't deal with them.
Jun 11, 2000
I don't particularly mind Californian arguments either personally, or indeed as a Moderator. I do agree with my colleagues, however, that personal attacks on the Board are not acceptable.

However, Senan, I would plead with you to realise that I am indeed capable, as are other members, of comprehending posts that do not require just one sentence per paragraph.

Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
Hi Bill:

The wreck site is not an "opinion." Nor is the course of the Carpathia an "opinion."

Both are plain.

It is not open to doubt that a particular position was transmitted by the Ttanic as her SOS position.

It is not now open to "opinion" as to whether that was right or wrong. It was wrong.

Californian gave evidence to seeing rockets in the "wrong" place by 1912 opinion. That put her head in the noose in the opinion of persons in power.

73 years later, we see that Californian saw rockets in the right place, where Titanic was actually sinking.

That vindicates Californian testimony as to the rockets - and rather strengthens the validity of their overall contention as to where they were.

Nobody lies in order to put their head on the block...

Comment is free. Such facts as we have are sacred.

The positions are on the map for all to see.

But some people will always have their "opinions."


Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
I am not hung up on the word "wreckage", although you are flinging matchwood in everyone's face to avoid the real issues, Sam.

Both Captain Rostron and Captain Lord said they encountered very little wreckage.

We'll get their quotes in a moment. But clearly they were not in the main wreckage because there were no bodies there...

It could be that he was referring to what could be called lifeboat wreckage. Or that when Captain Lord agrees that he left the scene of the wreckage, or wreck, he is talking about leaving the scene of the pick up.

When the Californian and the Carpathia met at 8.30am:

Lord: I saw several empty boats, some floating planks, a few deck chairs, and cushions; but considering the size of the disaster, there was very little wreckage. It seemed more like an old fishing boat had sunk.
(US p.723)

Rostron of the Carpathia said the very same:

Rostron: “I was then very close to where the Titanic must have gone down, as there was a lot of… hardly wreckage, but small pieces of broken-up stuff; nothing in the way of anything large.” (US p.22)

Br 25496 Did you see any wreckage at all of the Titanic?
Rostron: “The only wreckage we saw there was very small stuff – a few deck chairs and pieces of cork from lifebelts, and a few lifebelts knocking about, and things of that description, all very small stuff indeed. There was very little indeed.”

So you can't suspect Captain Lord - although I know you now naturally suspect everything out his mouth, because you have gone over to the side that regards him as Darth Vader - without equally condemning Saintly Sir Arthur, Captain Rostron.

It is obvious that the two ships did not meet at the main drag because the main drag contained 1,500 bodies.

The lifeboats pulled away down to 41 40, where Rostron met them on his plotted course of 52 degrees.

Your map does not show Rostron's course.

Mine does, and plots his crucial mention of being 20 miles away from the SOS position when he saw boat 2's green light "practically dead ahead."

I am happy for people to look at both maps.

The wreck site doesn't lie and neither does the Titanic evidence about the nature of their Mystery Ship, whose APPROACH, red light display and DEPARTURE, are all wholly against her being the stationary Californian as some people would believe, in defiance of all the known facts.

Known facts, not arguable phraseology.

Enormous known facts that the unhappy people here cannot dispute as they instead sift the small change of human testimony with all its attendant caveats and uncertainties.

I don't rely on lousy newspaper reports from the likes of Molly Brown, never sworn as a witness, or any muddle-cuddle about oceanic flows.

The large signposts point the way for all.

Obscurantists will always dabble in the obscure, for obscuring is their collective purpose.
Mar 20, 2000
Mindful that Senan can draw a damn good map, and that his article is thought-provoking as usual, this doubting Thomas thinks one fact in this time-worn scuffle can’t be denied. And that is, whether or not Californian was the ship whose lights were seen from Titanic that night, Californian also saw lights and did nothing about them.

Were the lights from Titanic? The answer is "yes" in my humble opinion, but even if they weren’t, Californian should have responded to the lights, whatever they were. This fact just doesn’t change, however one feels about a mystery ship’s presence.

Lights were seen by a ship stopped in the night by ice —— at the very least Californian’s radio operator ought to have been awakened to check on what was going on. And the captain should have got his butt on deck to have a look himself.

All the arguments about what lights were seen, who saw them, where and when they were seen, what color they were, how far away they were, etc., seems moot. The bottom line is unusual activity in a known area of heavy ice was not properly monitored. Had the lights been fully investigated Californian could have come to the rescue, whether she was 5 or 17 or 27 miles away. Lifeboats don’t lie, that’s true, but neither do the lights.

Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
This map - apologies for smallness - shows merely that Lord did what he said he would do. He searched down to leeward.


He went south, because nobody really knew where Titanic sank, since her SOS position was incorrect.

Captain Moore and Captain Lord knew that, but of course the Inquiries knew best!!

Then Lord said he left.

He says he left the wreckage, but he means he broke off the search. It is plain to everyone that there was no wreckage in 41 33, because there was practically none where the two ships met nearly three hours earlier.

You see, I'm agreeing with you, Sam.

On this one tiny point.

Trying to hang Lord because of looseness in how he describes leaving the scene of the search is really a rather wistful thing to behold... it shows the absolutely extremism in seizing on any little thing the man says.

The fact is that Mount Temple, at the SOS position, SAW the Californian steam by her.

They saw Californian go south for another half an hour before doing what Mount Temple wouldn't do - cutting across the ice to the Carpathia.

You take those six miles from where Mount Temple was at 41 46, and it brings you down to 41 40 N.

That's where the lifeboats went. To the south.

Californian said she was in 42 05, and the discovery of the wreck proved one of her contentions absolutely and immeasurably strengthened her overall credibility.

And I'll say it again. The stop position of Californian was 21 nautical miles from the wreck site.

The type of arguments now being mounted by my interlocutors really do speak for themselves...

Senan Molony

Jun 28, 1998
It is simplistic in the extreme to assume that because a vessel has another vessel near her - uniformly described as a small/tramp/steamer, "something like ourselves" (6,000 tons) and that she also sees "very low-lying rockets" that the small other ship must be the Titanic whose rockets did not go "half the height of the masthead light" as seen by Californian, but "several hundred feet in the air."

My article deliberately leaves out all Californian testimony as to sightings (using only what is capable of being corroborated by the Mount Temple) in order to show the key points in the lie of the land.

It is the absolute impossibility of some to separate the fact that the Californian saw Titanic's rockets from the fact that Titanic saw a Mystery Ship that bedevils.

Some people don't want complication. They want cardboard cut-outs of villainy.

Once you don't rush off to conclusions, once you study the evidence and the objective truth, you see that the Californian is absolutely incapable of being the Mystery Ship.

What happened on the Californian, whatever you think of her, whether you think Captain Lord had a sneer about his mouth and a pirate hat on his head, is a SEPARATE issue to the cold study of the Mystery Ship seen by the Titanic.

People can stop bashing themselves on the head with the inherent contradictions - and not a line in my article has been impugned yet - once they stop trying to force a round peg into a square hole.

Assuming the SOS position was correct in 1912 was a wrong assumption.

The same with insisting that the Titanic sank "absolutely intact."

The wreck position, discovered in 1985, establishes clearly for all who WANT to see that the Californian could not have been the Mystery Ship.

Similar threads

Similar threads