Lifeboats Don't Lie

Mar 22, 2003
5,383
754
273
Chicago, IL, USA
I'm not trying to hang anyone. The evidence provided is clear. There was a strong southerly surface current pulling everything that floated downward to the south all night and into the next day. With a wind and seas that sprung up in the early morning it is not hard to see why floating debris and bodies would be scattered about instead of being confined to small area. I think Bissit said it all regarding that issue. He was there, you and I weren't. To me the overturned collapsible is proof that the boats were carried south by this current. Everything was within an area of 4-5 miles from each other and do believe Lord when he said he left the area of the wreckage when and where he did. He never said he went south of where the boats were picked up. He clearly explained what he saw and where he saw it.

And just for the record, I do believe he was given a raw deal considering the feeble information that Stone gave him during the night. The mistake he made was after he found out that the Titanic had sunk and may have been the ship that was firing off those rockets. Too bad Stone was such an awfull observer, and Lord felt a need to coverup what happened during that middle watch.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,688
1
106
Dublin
No, Samuel, Bisset did not give evidence in 1912. His book was ghostwritten, came out in 1959 in a hopelessly compromised environment, and I dismiss all memoirs of the sort, with attendant sales pressure.

There were no bodies there. There was no supercharged current.

It would have been Bisset's duty to barge into court and tell the truth if there had been a conspiracy to keep quiet about bodies.

Why would anyone shun that disclosure? Rostron and Boxhall both spoke quite a lot about the single body they saw. It certainly did not drift, alone, on a supercharged current down to where the lifeboats were picked up.

The lifeboats got down there because they went down there. Not to the north.

I was suggesting earlier that Crawford, combined with Boxhall suggested that the lifeboats were only scattered over a four mile area.

I now find confirmation from Rostron:

25500. The Commissioner: I understand you to say those (life)boats were spread over an area of five miles?
Rostron: Four to five miles, yes.
[earlier having said:
25491. “They were within a range of four or five miles.”￾]
That wraps it all up for anyone to see.

Human witnesses harangued in the witness box, as Lord was, make all sorts of mistakes, slips of the tongue, agree with things without fully understanding the question, get tired...

I have covered tribunals, courts and Inquiries, given evidence myself several times, and know what I'm talking about. I can also read the cadence of evidence, and that is not a boast.
It is just experience.

If I am unsure about any sinking testimony I read, I say something aloud, tape it, think about it. Read the whole thing again. Word-searching will only ever rip words in bleeding chunks out of their context.

And the key problem here is that people do not take the time to read the evidence, to know the nuances, to read the map.

Some lifeboat occupants will always talk BS on the basic human-nature scale.

But the lifeboats themselves don't lie!

Similarly, there will be differences in human estimates of how far away the Mystery Ship was. But we know the sidelights were visible.

When you aggregate and average out ALL the accounts, as I have done, you will see that the distance is 5.6 miles.

That is PROVEN in a legal sense of proof because it is an aggregate of testimony entered into evidence.

Of course Lord Mersey ignored all that and decided that he knew better.

I could write a whole separate article on that.

But after his report came out with its nonsensical 8-10 mile estimate - which flew in the face of all the evidence - the Titanic officers, the very next year, in Ryan v. OSNC, kept to their very small estimates of the distance given. Some got lower.

Nothing could be sturdier than the evidence of the Mystery Ship approaching, coming close, and later moving off.

If she's that close, she ain't Californian.
And she's close.

If she's moving at all, she ain't Californian.
But she's moving.

If she's showing and early red light, and she is, she ain't Californian.
Californian was showing green.

If Captain Moore [Independent witness] is right, she ain't Californian.

If Captain Rostron [Independent witness] is right, she ain't Californian.

Square pegs go in square holes, and round pegs in round ones.

We've had enough assumptions since 1912. Talk about the Californian again if you must...

I am much more interested in probing, and thinking and learning as much as I can about the Mystery Ship.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,688
1
106
Dublin
That website's focus is to put the cart before the horse by deciding an "I know better" distance for the Californian.

The Titanic evidence made it clear even before the finding of the wreck that the Californian could not have been the Mystery Ship.

That's the top and bottom of it.

I reside my trust in the evidence of the Titanic officers as to the distance, given on oath in 1912 and 1913. As to websites...

Stone was not an "awful" observer, Sam. He was a clear witness and they couldn't break him.

Read his evidence, read all the evidence in fact, and look at the map.

Easy assumption, as a starting point, gets people into trouble the world over.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
Molony said:
>The wreck site is not an "opinion." Nor is the course of the Carpathia an "opinion."

But your interpetation of what they mean, is. The wreck site is a fact, true. It is concrete and can be proven. The course of the Californian is not a fact. It is a fact that Lord said this course - which doesn't make it true.

Hmmm. I see my previous post - which was NOT a personal attack, but questioning why Molony has been able to get away with his insulting comments - has disappeared. How come?
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
Bill, there was talk last year about a three strikes and you're out policy. A few people did indeed fall foul of this - Jon Hollis who was suspended briefly. When it was clear this policy wasn't being carried out, George Behe, a truly nice man and a great researcher (and who helped suggest the three strikes system) left the board for good.

Molony seems to have "as many strikes as you want" and gets away with it.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
34
208
Several posts have been removed, including at least one from Senan Molony (apparently - this occured overnight down here in Oz, and as I don't keep a 24 hour watch myself I still need to catch up on what's been occuring). These posts concerned the nature of the offensive 'joke' and the identity of the poster. While none was, as far as I can determine, innately offensive in their wording, each served to perpetuate the side-show initiated by the original racial slur. It was partly to avoid this situation (as well as to remove ethnically/regionally offensive comments) that the original posts were removed.

It can be extremely difficult to determine for those moderating a rigorous debate like this who begins a brawl, who is responsible for escalating rhetoric, who is baiting and who is rising to the bait, etc etc. That is why there are often admonishments to all sides to cool it.

Because of this climate, no official warning was extended to the two posters who had the racial/regionally based exchange earlier, even though either comment would normally have warranted a three-strikes warning, if not outright immediate booting. The comments/'jokes' that were removed - which came from two sides of this debate - were racist, bigoted and utterly innapropriate. One was in response to the other, but both were deleted (and, for the record, that response was *not* from Senan Molony).

As for a warning policy not being carried out, rest assured that not only was the poster who caused the offence last year banned from the board, he has been detected in subsequent attempts to re-enter and has been re-banned.

Both sides in this discussion clearly feel aggrieved and believe that their opponents have set the tone of the debate. From the perspective of those not involved, it is apparent that there has been antagonism on both sides.

We will have no hesitation in removing further posts that overstep the boundary, or in at least temporarily closing the thread altogether if the tone of discussion deteriorates further, or if it does not get back on topic.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,383
754
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Thanks Inger for the explanation. I hope this can be discussed with focus on the issues. I also believe all points of view should be considered and certainly respected. Senan has some strong views as has tried to present that here. He asked me about the putting the track of the Carpathia in the above chart I posted. I decided to do so to see what this shows. The expanded chart is shown below.
100442.gif

I did my best to make this as precise as possible. First the position of the wreck site is the exact position from Balard to the center of the boiler field. Other positions on the chart include Capt. Lord's reported stopped position up at 42° 05'N, 50° 07'W. The Boxhall CQD position at 41° 46'N, 50° 14'W. Also Californian's reported position to the Antillian for 6:30 PM 4/14 which was recorded as 42° 03'N, 49° 09'W and the tract line from his noon position to 42°N 51°W on account of ice reports that Capt. Lord said he was headed for in his 1959 affidavit.

Now what was added is the track that Capt. Rostron said he was on to the CQD location which was N 52° W true (or 308° by modern notation). He also said that when he was at least 20 miles from the site (2:40 AM by his account) he saw a green flare 1/2 point off his port bow. The location of the Carpathia if it were precisely on that track line is indicated at the 20 miles to go point. A line from there 1/2 point (5.6°) off his port bow is also shown. What I found is that the closest distance from the wreck site to Carpathia's track line is 5.8 miles in a direction perpendicular to Carpathia's course. What I also found is that the closest distance from the wreck site to the line from Carpathia to the direction of the flare is 6.5 miles as is also shown. (All miles of course being nautical miles here.)

There are also a few other items on this chart but let's stick to the lifeboat issue for now.

We know for a fact that Boxhall was firing these green flares from lifeboat #2, and in fact, his boat was the first to get alongside the Carpathia at 4:10 AM according to Rostron. For Boxhall's boat to get to that position it had to cover 6.5 miles in a little over 2 hours. But as Senan pointed out, he didn't stay on the port side of the Titanic when his boat was lowered but had rowed around to the starboard side. Assuming Senan is correct and the titanic was pointing west, then Boxhall's boat was obviously to the north side of the Titanic. Boxhall said they pulled away "in a North-Easterly direction(BOT 15465)," which is away from the track line. Boxhall estimated that he was about 1/2 mile away when the ship sank. He was then asked about the other boats and Boxhall said "I could not see any boats, not when I had got so far away as that. Some of them had gone in a more northerly direction than I had gone. (BOT 15470)." He also said "I did not see any boat near us, although I was showing these green lights occasionally, with the intention of getting all the boats together. There was not a boat anywhere near us. I did not see any. I was the first boat picked up on board the 'Carpathia.' (15482)"

If he had done what he said, then he had to be 1/2 mile NE of the wreck site at 2:20 AM. He didn't say anything about turning around and going to the SW, but he must have done so and somehow reached the position marked on the chart above by 2:40 or so when Rostron spotted that flare of his. Somehow this doesn't make any sense based on these track lines and what Boxhall said.

Please correct me if I did something wrong or got the information wrong.

I hope someone can explain how Boxhall's boat could have gone 6.5 + 0.5 = 7 miles in about 40 minutes for his flare to have shown up where it did? Even if they started rowing to the SW as soon as the Titanic sank they would have had to make 4.7 knots over ground in about 1.5 hours. And surely it must have been from Boxhall's boat that that green flare came because Rostron headed toward the flare and found Boxhall's boat there, the first one to be picked up.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
34
208
I am loathe to close this thread as it is clear that some posters such as Sam have put a good deal of thought into their responses and desire a genuine dialogue.

However, I have just been obligated to remove another post that had no content other than a gratuitous swipe at another member of the forum. The post has been removed and the individual responsible has been formally cautioned.

I urge all posters to leave the provocation, baiting and asides alone and stay on topic. I'm due to go off watch soon, and those about to come on watch will be keeping an eye on this thread to see if it needs to be quarantined.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,688
1
106
Dublin
Samuel's map has some bells and whistles, but he has now included the Carpathia course and Hey Presto! She's encountering the lifeboats to the south of the wreck site.

That's what the Research Article is proving, and it PROVES that the lifeboats, which were all within "four or five miles" according to Rostron, did not go to the North.

Bill Wormstedt said in a previous thread that he "chooses to believe" that the Titanic was pointing north when the Mystery Ship was seen.

Because he wants the Mystery Ship to be the Californian, which testified to being to the north. Testimony as to her stop position put her in grave difficulty in 1912, but aspects of her testimony have been vindicated since.

The lifeboats pulled for the Mystery Ship, obviously.

But the lifeboats went south.

Can Bill explain this, or is he just going to ignore
100455.jpg
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,688
1
106
Dublin
The man who let himself down in public has not one, but several elephants in his living room that he will not address.

These elephants are also in the homes, beds, and outhouses of all those who now express the belief that the Californian was the Mystery Ship.

We have seen the most pathetic attempts to suggest that some current shot the lifeboats way down south while they were busy rowing the other way.

Yet the sea that night was "a flat calm," it was "like glass," "a millpond," "not a breath of wind on the water."

I spent much of my boyhood rowing in Dublin Bay. It's not hard to make progress when the surface is dead calm.

It is perfectly credible that Crawford made four or five miles towards the light. The wonder is that he didn't make more.

He and the others should all be north of the wreck site at 41 43, and north of the impact point at 41 46, if they are heading towards the stationary Californian.

But instead Carpathia is encountering the light of lifeboat 2 in 41 40.

Six miles south of 41 46. Three miles south of the wreck in latitude. For anyone who understands longitude and latitude, it really is Game Over.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,688
1
106
Dublin
Let's go back to basics. To the elephant the diehards are still ignoring.

100459.jpg


If 712 people in nearly a score of lifeboats to miles towards the Mystery Ship with "beautiful lights" in the words of Fourth Officer Boxhall (he later said he could see her portholes!) and d so for a couple of hours, they will undoubtedly make progress.

If the Mystery Ship is the Californian, then not alone is she stationary - unlike the Mystery Ship - whoops, elephant -
100460.jpg

- but she will still be there at 4am (daylight) because she doesn't get underway until 6am.

So how come the 712 people can't see her. How come no-one said, "That ship had a pink funnel." Leyland liners like the Californian had pink funnels. It is unmistakable.

It is not just a dark shape. It is now the still, bright dawn on a flat sea [the survivors talks of being warmed by the sun] and the colours of a ship's funnel at five miles (* the mean Titanic witness description) - even if the lifeboats had made no progress at all would be unmistakable.

That's one elephant. The other one is that there is no ship to be seen at all. That's another. Yet the Californian did not get underway until 6am.

This is the most basic logic of all, but those who cling to illogical beliefs shun, run and ignore it in the hope it will all go away.

And then they wonder why they've got massive footprints in their butter.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
Inger, don't you find Senan's use of language and his continuous posting of that stupid elephant picture to be insulting? I do.

Lets hope the moderators take some action on this. When I mentioned that Senan had been insulting to me, ON MANY occasions, *I* was threatened with expulsion from this board. Why is his insulting behaviour being tolerated? Perhaps I should write a few research articles and then I'd get away with blue murder.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,688
1
106
Dublin
Paul, give me one good reason why the Californian must be the Titanic's Mystery Ship?

Come on, - one.

This thread is for debate. Address the Elephantine points.

Complaining from the sidelines can be seen by the audience on this thread for what it is.

Your own previous posts are also noted, and have contributed zip.

You know, the people who can't offer any arguments as to why the Californian must be the Mystery Ship are stuck in a 1912 worldview.

They are reactive, crying in pain, but they never offer us anything new to think about because they would rather stay cocooned, while the world has moved on.

They found the Titanic wreck because the 1912-thinkers had wasted millions looking in the SOS position, instead of following the line to the south east, 20 miles away, described by Rostron, and widening out from there.

You have yet to write a Research Article. Off you go... you told us once you were updating Walter Lord's A Night to Remember. How is that coming along? I'm interested...

The people who self-describe as "Anti-Lordites" (imagine! the blinkers!) won't think about the evidence.

They won't think about lifeboat 8, or any lifeboat movement.

They won't offer a single new idea - such as that Captain Smith, instead of allowing 35 passengers into number 8, should have filled it with a dozen strong rowers, thrown in pistols and rockets, and sent them away as a "race craft" towards the Mystery Ship.

That was certainly a gamble worth taking at the time. It could have changed history, the craft being five miles away by mean Titanic evidence, not the "fifteen miles" Paul Lee tells us he advocates!

Of course it was just two years later - in 1914 - that the Aquitania was equipped with a motor lifeboat... Just two years...

100464.jpg


Nicer picture than the elephants that you and others ignore, Paul?

I would like to see anything you have to contribute.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
>you told us once you were updating Walter >Lord's A Night to Remember

When was this?

I won't debate ANYTHING with you as long as you rely in insulting behaviour to prove your points. I have debated with you in the past and every time, you have insulted and belittled myself and anyone who doesn't agree with you: you had your quiet period in the summer, and the board was more or less free from antagnoism. Now you are back and things have degenerated into a form of nastiness and name calling that is usually reserved for schoolyard squabbles.

The only thing you contribute to is my blood pressure.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,688
1
106
Dublin
No, Paul, I haven't called you any names on this thread. Dave Billnitzer stooped to a particular low and got zapped.

You are not addressing the arguments...
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
>you told us once you were updating Walter >Lord's A Night to Remember

I've found it. I said nothing of the sort. What I said was

"a sort of "updated Night to Remember", mainly focussed on contemporary 1912 accounts"

I never said ANYTHING about updating Night To Remember.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
Senan, you have insulted me on other threads.

Thats why I won't debate with you.

I just find it amazing that you get away with your tirades.

I read Bill's posts.

I didn't find anything insulting in what he writes.