Having been absent for a couple of days, I can't really comment on events on this thread as an additional couple of technical glitches have obscured the chronology of the posts, and even possibly some responses. However, I do think the elephant has outstayed his welcome.
Nothing to do with this current debate in terms of the actual identity of the Mystery Ship, but I have always wondered a bit about so many people's serene willingness to confidently state how many miles away they thought ships and/or lights were. Not the seamen involved, as one would expect them to be able to estimate distance. But the passengers and non-deck crew. How many of them would have known the distance to the visible horizon at varying heights i.e. when standing on Titanic's deck or, later, seated in a lifeboat? And then be able to estimate the distance comparing their position, the sighted object, and the reference horizon? Even harder on a moonless night, where only the setting stars deliniated the horizon. I'm sure, as a layperson, I could not have made much of an accurate estimate, and would have been most reluctant to try.
On the subject of the identity of the Mystery Ship, I personally think Senan raises some points in favour of his argument which are not easy to refute. And if it were not for the rocket sightings, most people would not argue against him nearly as much. However, the rocket sightings do exist, so everyone is left trying to reconstruct events under very difficult circumstances so many years on. Not much helped, I'd have thought, by 14.04.12 astronomical maps of the position of 'red' planets etc., or indeed amateur estimates of distance. Extant ships' logs (before the sinking, and thus no need for dissembling), known tracks and drift, the actual wreck site etc., however, seem reasonable evidence for deduction.
The Molony and Bilnitzer factions, if I can so stereotype them, are never going to agree. And under those circumstances, I think people have to give and take on the so-called insulting behaviour, because it seems fairly evenly distributed to me. You can either have bland discussion, or you can have a bit of passion injected. Which do you prefer? If the latter, then you can join in or abstain, and let the Moderators try to do their best to keep discussion reasonably civilised whilst allowing dissent and vibrant discussion .... or you can castigate the Moderators, and go off in a huff. Which divides those very people who have a fairly esoteric interest in common.
If I were a journalist, I'd have probably written this in one-sentence paragraphs .... unluckily, I'm an academic, so I write in long, impenetrable and annoyingly even-handed paragraphs.
Can't please everyone, then?
Nothing to do with this current debate in terms of the actual identity of the Mystery Ship, but I have always wondered a bit about so many people's serene willingness to confidently state how many miles away they thought ships and/or lights were. Not the seamen involved, as one would expect them to be able to estimate distance. But the passengers and non-deck crew. How many of them would have known the distance to the visible horizon at varying heights i.e. when standing on Titanic's deck or, later, seated in a lifeboat? And then be able to estimate the distance comparing their position, the sighted object, and the reference horizon? Even harder on a moonless night, where only the setting stars deliniated the horizon. I'm sure, as a layperson, I could not have made much of an accurate estimate, and would have been most reluctant to try.
On the subject of the identity of the Mystery Ship, I personally think Senan raises some points in favour of his argument which are not easy to refute. And if it were not for the rocket sightings, most people would not argue against him nearly as much. However, the rocket sightings do exist, so everyone is left trying to reconstruct events under very difficult circumstances so many years on. Not much helped, I'd have thought, by 14.04.12 astronomical maps of the position of 'red' planets etc., or indeed amateur estimates of distance. Extant ships' logs (before the sinking, and thus no need for dissembling), known tracks and drift, the actual wreck site etc., however, seem reasonable evidence for deduction.
The Molony and Bilnitzer factions, if I can so stereotype them, are never going to agree. And under those circumstances, I think people have to give and take on the so-called insulting behaviour, because it seems fairly evenly distributed to me. You can either have bland discussion, or you can have a bit of passion injected. Which do you prefer? If the latter, then you can join in or abstain, and let the Moderators try to do their best to keep discussion reasonably civilised whilst allowing dissent and vibrant discussion .... or you can castigate the Moderators, and go off in a huff. Which divides those very people who have a fairly esoteric interest in common.
If I were a journalist, I'd have probably written this in one-sentence paragraphs .... unluckily, I'm an academic, so I write in long, impenetrable and annoyingly even-handed paragraphs.
Can't please everyone, then?
