Mount Temple


Dec 6, 2000
1,384
11
221
Mark - I checked the online American Inquiry, and my own personal copy, and both say 3 o'clock. It's possible you may have seen an old, uncorrected copy, but it's fixed now.
 
Jan 21, 2001
144
1
171
Hi Mark:

Here's a little more information to fill in the blanks above.

Baker was the Fourth Officer on the Mt Temple - but not for the voyage in question. His letter to Capt Lord, written mid summer 1912, was based on hearsay:

"I came home from in the Mount Temple from Halifax (following) that voyage, having been taken out of the Empress at ten minutes notice to fill up a vacancy…. The officers and others told me what they had seen on the eventful night when the Titanic went down, and from what they said, they were from ten to fourteen miles from her when they saw her signals. I gather from what was told me that the captain seemed afraid to go through the ice, although it was not so very thick. They told me that they not only saw her deck lights but several green lights between them and what they thought was the Titanic. There were two loud reports heard which they said must have been the "finale" of the Titanic; this was some time after sighting her, I gathered. The captain said at the Washington Inquiry that he was forty-nine miles away but the officers state he was not more than fourteen miles off. I must tell you these men were fearfully indignant that they were not called up to give evidence at the time, for they were greatly incensed at the captain’s behavior in the matter. The doctor had made all the preparations and rooms were turned into hospitals, etc. and the crew were standing by ready to help, on deck, watching her lights and what they said were the green lights burnt in the boats… These fellows must feel sorry for you, knowing that you could not, in the face of this, have been the mystery ship…"

When you compare his hearsay story with that of Quitzrau's, the discrepancy in times, the distance travelled, etc., the only believable explanation is that they saw the Carpathia's lights and rockets, along with Boxhall's green flares from the boats. Certainly not the 'finale' of the Titanic.

Prior to Baker joining the Mt Temple, a fellow named Notley served as Fourth Officer. He and Baker met with Lord over lunch, and (according to Leslie Harrison) Notley was willing to share whatever he could tell about that voyage with Capt. Lord, but it evidently was not enough to make a difference. In any case, whatever Notley knew or did not know, he did not share it with the BR Board of Trade either.

Finally, Baker and Lord attempted to get help from the Mt Temple's Dr. Bailey, who was even less help:

"… what value would an unprofessional and worthless expression of details as to what occurred on the Mount Temple be in the face of what has been found? It is clearly in Captain Lord’s best plan to seek his evidence from Notley at Montreal and the officers who were on the ship at the time who saw certain things and freely discussed matters together; why come to ask me, who doesn’t know the blunt from the sharp end of a ship?"

You haven't made a fool of yourself at all; these are good questions. But the end result was that even IF the Mt Temple had been there, not one officer made a statement to any useful effect. And as John Feeney pointed out on a separate thread, even IF the Mt Temple had been there too, it does not subtract the Californian, where there is much stronger documentation. That documentation from the Californian's own officers - Stone's and Gibson's statements, eg - seriously undermines Baker's sentence that "[Lord's] could not, in the face of this, have been the mystery ship."

Dave Billnitzer
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
111
258
Hi Bill!

Thanks for your clarification -- it probably was an old copy that I printed for my own convinience, but from other source notes I had three o'clock so I went with that. I am pleased that this has been corrected as the team have done an excellent job of transcribing.

Hi Dave!

Thanks for your detailed reply. It's good to see you here as a man that's studied the Californian saga in some detail. Personally I am wandering a bit out of my main field of interest, but nonetheless the mystery ship saga is fascinating.

In putting forward the Mount Temple's movements, I certainly *agree* with yourself and John Feeney that they *would not excuse* Californian's inaction even if the MT had been 'another' mystery ship; I didn't mean to *imply* that, so please accept my apologies for inadvertently doing so.

Hearsay seems to describe much of the accounts, both from Baker and Quitzrau. Personally, I'd like to believe in the sincerity of human nature and conclude that they were relating events that they believed in good faith to be true, but were not, rather than believing that they were publicity seekers (or Quitzrau anyway).

I'd say that the 'fourteen mile' figure cited by Baker is similar to Quitzrau's, but as you no doubt have noticed, there is no time given and so the figure is meaningless. Carpathia's could certainly be an explanation for the signals apparently sighted.

I hadn't seen that quote from Doctor Bailey, so many thanks for supplying it. Personally I would want to put the Mount Temple's story forward, for two reasons. If there is no mention of it, or no exploration of its truthfullness, then people may continue to believe that the MT was likewise 'guilty'; but the second reason is that if MT was not, it is incredible that she has received such attention and attracted such stories from several people, untrue or not.

As an aside from this thread, which hopefully will stay 'on topic,' it might sound strange to say that I am still 'sitting on the fence' as regards to Lord. Certainly I accept that he failed to do what was required in the circumstances that he was faced with; but I also believe that Stone's actions were short of the mark; and that he was too quickly condemned by some people who were not in the same situation before Titanic was the most famous ship in the world. (Though I won't go further because it *is* a can of worms.
wink.gif
)

You agreed with me that these were 'good questions' as regards the Mount Temple. It is truly fascinating that there are so many questions unanswered as to why these story(s) cropped up, even if we conclude that they were not accurate. Has anyone ever researched some of the points about Moore, or Quitzrau? I heard that Diana Bristow researched the story in one of her works, though I have not had what would have surely been the undoubted pleasure of reading that. But knowing her thoroughness in other areas of research, did she come up with any reasons as to why these stories might have been put forward?

Best regards,

Mark.
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
11
0
Hi, Mark!

>Personally, I'd like to believe in the sincerity >of human nature and conclude that they were >relating events that they believed in good faith >to be true, but were not, rather than believing >that they were publicity seekers (or Quitzrau >anyway).

When I get a spare moment I'll try to dig up the other 'dicey' Mt. Temple passenger accounts that I mentioned to you the other day. (Although I tend to share your faith in human nature, these accounts can only be described as being 'highly original.') :)

Take care, old chap -- I enjoyed our recent joint conversation with Mike Tennaro re: the Mt. Temple's timing of events.

All my best,

George
 
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
4
0
Mark wrote: "Hearsay seems to describe much of the accounts, both from Baker and Quitzrau. Personally, I'd like to believe in the sincerity of human nature and conclude that they were relating events that they believed in good faith to be true ..."

Mark: For what it's worth, I concur with you entirely there. Based especially on Quitzrau's adamance -- he was said at one point to have been outraged at not being invited to testify personally in Washington -- I suspect that he at least (and possibly Baker, as well) really *believed* what he'd heard.

The flaws in both accounts, in my mind, seem to stem not so much from the manufacture of details (though there are some squirrely details), but from their misinterpretation. When you put it all together -- the nonsensical time conversion, the green lights, etc. -- it seems pretty clear that both Quitzrau and Baker could have faithfully reported what they recalled hearing, but that those who relayed those observations to them had totally misunderstood their meaning, actually seeing *Carpathia's* rockets with the green flares from Boxhall's lifeboat. (It's a certainty they couldn't have seen *Titanic's* rockets AND Boxhall's flares at the same time!)

No, I think both men could have been relatively sincere, just misled by others who were equally convinced -- at least at the time. But since those who'd relayed the tales later *declined* to come forward, perhaps they too realized that what they initially *thought* they were witnessing wasn't necessarily what they'd seen at all. (And of course, objections to Moore's final decision *not* to proceed through the ice field are probably to be considered an expected outfall of any difficult command decision made.)

My own vague recollection [from Wade?] is that Quitzrau was a fairly respected member of his community. And he apparently had some political clout, since it was the Canadian Consul who got his deposition admitted. (Presumably the Consul was having difficulty getting Quitzrau "off his back" -- not the kind of stature you'd normally attribute to a simple "crank").

My own reading of Moore's testimony convinces me that the second longitude recorded, 51°41' [after consulting memorandum], really *was* a typo in the stenographer's notes and should have been the 51°14' stated immediately afterwards. Under that premise, Moore initially says "15" from memory, then amends it to "14" after looking it up, then re-affirms it, which seems pretty reasonable. And plotting the distance from that longitude does fits Moore's estimated mileage from the CQD.

The *printed* 51°41' longitude, on the other hand, is totally out of the question for the Mount Temple, placing it about 20 miles (and roughly 1-1/2 hours minimum travel time) further west still. Under those circumstances, Moore couldn't possibly have reached the CQD position until about 6:00 AM; his ship was only capable of around 13 knots.

(Of course, that wouldn't be the first occasion where I've seen evidence of a mild form of dyslexia in Bill McKinstry's efforts. There are a *few* juxtaposed digits in the beleaguered stenographer's work.) ;^)

Cheers,
John
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
111
258
Hi!

Thanks for more replies. This thread is slowly generating the kind of discussion that I hoped it would. Thanks George for your offer of further accounts re: the Mount Temple. My own research into her has been limited at best, though documents on microfiche at the PRO in London are well worth a look.

When you put it all together -- the nonsensical time conversion, the green lights, etc. -- it seems pretty clear that both Quitzrau and Baker could have faithfully reported what they recalled hearing, but that those who relayed those observations to them had totally misunderstood their meaning,

You do make a good case for the point on both people's ideas/thoughts. Mundane or not, the thought of misinterpretation rather than a conspiracy theory seems refreshing, for mot things have been subjected to conspiracy theories in their time.

I haven't read Wade, although I am sure that he gives good views especially in regards the American investigation. McKinstry's mistakes may seem great, but I suppose that it is quite understandable; so much material, mild dislexia(?0, and British accents. As a Britisher watching the American version of The Weakest Link, Anne Robinson's questions are as clear as crystal to me but not to the American contestants; and it amazes me how they cannot understand her. Likewise, I can barely understand some of the contestants' accents, which would no doubt amaze them. When I visited America in 1998, everyone found my accent hard to understand.

As an aside, I am amazed that this story does not get mentioned that much. Wade's material on Quitzrau sounds refreshing, but if I recall, E&H TT, DD, and other well-known works just neglect to mention the MT entirely. I know some believe them to go out of the way with their 'Lordite' credentials, but from a neutral standpoint they would make a better case for Lord if it was baed on truth. Understand I am not accusing E&H, but the perceived methods by some researchers by others in general.

Best regards,

Mark.
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
11
0
Hi, Mark!

Here is the information I promised re: spurious allegations by Mt. Temple passengers and crewmen:

1. W. H. Kennervorst: claimed to be a Mt. Temple passenger and said that the Mt. Temple was within five miles of the Titanic before the latter vessel went down. He claimed to have seen the lights of the Titanic, but Captain Moore hove his ship to and declined to steam toward the sinking vessel despite the pleas of his officers.

2. E. W. Zurich: claimed to be a Mt. Temple passenger and said that he and two other passengers snuck to the Mt. Temple's deck against the captain's orders. He was "almost positive" that he saw the masts of the Titanic.

3. Dr. Quitzrau: One of the Mt. Temple's officers was certain that Quitzrau was the person who originated all of the rumors concerning the Californian. He said that Quitzrau had been a steerage passenger, but due to crowded conditions he was given 2nd class accomodations. Quitzrau was found on the 'saloon deck' during the voyage and, when it was found that he had a steerage ticket, he was ordered off the deck. The officer said that Quitzrau was creating these stories for spite.

4. John Ehmig: claimed to be a Mt. Temple steward and said that Mt. Temple was only five miles from the Titanic when she received the CQD. Mt. Temple started for the Titanic, but then Captain Moore apparently lost his nerve, changed course and skirted the icefield, coming nowhere close to the scene of the sinking.

5. An unidentified engine room hand said that, when his watch was over, he went on deck and (with other crew members and passengers) watched the almost steady stream of rockets from the Titanic. He stayed on deck til almost 2 a.m., watching until the signals were lost in the distance as the Mt. Temple sailed away; the Mt. T. was between five and ten miles from the Titanic.

6. Another sailor who was on watch that Sunday night said that he heard Third Officer Notley tell Captain Moore about the distress signals, but the Mt. Temple steamed away on her own course so that the Titanic's lights soon disappeared.

7. Second Officer Heal enigmatically told reporters that if he wanted to talk he could tell a lot. He added that it was not his business to talk and, if anyone wanted information, they should see Captain Moore.

As you can see, the above accounts are pretty 'imaginative' (and that's a pretty charitable evaluation.) :)

Anyway, the above information was first published in my 1981 letter to the Commutator's Sea Poste column. (My letter contained information on several potential 'mystery ship' candidates as well.)

Hope this information will be of interest.

All my best,

George
 
Nov 12, 2000
682
6
171
George,
a fascinating set of accounts! I had no idea that there was this much scuttlebut about Mount Temple actually seeing Titanic, beyond Quitzrau & Baker. what is the origin of all these other accounts? were they taken from newspaper stories? if so, that could account for some of the additional "flavor" therein.

taking all the above crew and passenger accounts as a whole, it begins to sound to me like a story that was almost self-generating. one person says the Mount Temple mysteriously stopped, someone else says they are sure they saw lights, another gets convinced the lights were actually Titanic, and the story running through the cabins of Mount Temple just builds and builds and builds.

I tend to agee with John F that Quitzrau, at least, believed in his own mind what he was saying, but now I wonder if he allowed himself to be convinced more by the scuttlebut making the rounds of the ship than from an event he personally saw himself.

all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
11
0
Hi, Michael!

>what is the origin of all these other accounts? >were they taken from newspaper stories?

Yes, they were all newspaper accounts.

>it begins to sound to me like a story that was >almost self-generating.

I agree with you 100%.

Take care, my friend.

All my best,

George
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
111
258
Hi!

Thanks very much George for all of those accounts. Certainly the number might seem to lend credence to the Mount Temple as a mystery ship, but when we actually read them, let alone do any analyses, they seem so different as to defy belief.

Quiztrau's apparent annoyance with regard to his treatment might well explain partly his story. This Mount Temple material deserves a book in itself considering all of the treatment that the Californian has received.

1. W. H. Kennervorst: claimed to be a Mt. Temple passenger and said that the Mt. Temple was within five miles of the Titanic before the latter vessel went down...

Presumably she raced to the rescue, then decided to stop in solid ice while her Officers falsified her position, leaving every passenger to watch the disaster!
wink.gif


2. E. W. Zurich: claimed to be a Mt. Temple passenger and said that he and two other passengers snuck to the Mt. Temple's deck against the captain's orders. He was "almost positive" that he saw the masts of the Titanic.

Incredible that he would see the masts (presumably as opposed to the ship's glitterring lights); and be so positive about the experience as to add the qualifier 'almost'.

4. John Ehmig: claimed to be a Mt. Temple steward and said that Mt. Temple was only five miles from the Titanic when she received the CQD. Mt. Temple started for the Titanic, but then Captain Moore apparently lost his nerve, changed course and skirted the icefield, coming nowhere close to the scene of the sinking.

Presumably the Mount Temple was so close because she had changed course before receiving the distress call -- the Captain Moore mounted a heroic rescue attempt before deciding to call it off because of nerves!

As an aside, presumably some of this material appeared prior to Smith's investigation in NY -- or more specifically, his questioning of Moore?

Many thanks George for bringing these to my attention -- and excuse the light interpretations.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Jan 21, 2001
144
1
171
Mark:

If you're interested, my site includes a copy of a NY American article from April 25, 1912. The article doesn't include the interviewees names that George gives above, but it definitely gives you the flavor of how the story sprang to life. As you already seem to sense, it reads like so much yellow journalism: big on sensation, scant on corroborable information.

The article is under the chapter heading "Documents" with the subheading "Mt Temple Story." The URL is:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dnitzer/titanic.html

Note that on the same day this story is breaking in St. John's, Newfoundland (April 25), a much bigger scandal is breaking in Boston: Ernest Gill has gone to the Boston American, which has just published his famous affidavit that very morning, and Capt Lord is set to begin his web of lies and denials.

DBillnitzer
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
11
0
Hi, Mark!

>....and excuse the light interpretations.

Your "light" interpretations were perfectly appropriate for the subject matter, old chap. :)

Hi, Nefarious!

>The article doesn't include the interviewees >names that George gives above,

Please feel free to include my Mt. Temple info on your website if you'd like to, Dave. (In fact, I'd be honored if you decided to do so.)

All my best,

George
 

Arne Mjåland

Member
Oct 21, 2001
213
0
171
Here is a part of an article in The Commercial News April 27 1912 (U.S.A.) in case here is something new about the Mount Temple:
THREE VESSELS NEAR TITANIC

Captain of the Mount Temple Declares Two steamers and Schooner were close by.

Says he got message and turned ship to succor.
Identy of other steamers and the tramp not learned. By Assosiated Press.
"Two steamers and schooner were only a short distance away from the Titanic when she sank, according to the testimony of Capt. James H. Moore of the steamship Mount Temple, to-day before the senate commitee investigating the tragedy. Ice was the barrier that held back vessels hurrying to the rescue.
Teh Mount Temple interrupted the Titanic`s call for help. Capt. Moore said, and immediately he turned his ships course toward the crippled liner. On his way he raised the lights of a scooner within a few miles of the scene of the tragedy, and coming from that direction. When day broke to disclose a great field of ice ahead, the Mount Temple discovered a tramp steamer close by. The identity of neither scooner nor tramp was fixed.
My wireless operator J. Burrani informed me, continued Capt. Moore that from the sound of the signals he judged that the Frankfurt was nearest to the Titanic. The last message the Titanic answered was that from the Olympic, the operator told me was at 1.30 Monday morning. A few minutes after that the operator told me that the Olympic, Baltic and Frankfurt were all trying to get to the Titanic, but could not reach her. The Titanic, he said, had not spoken since 1.30. That was about an hour after I had been given the first signal from the Titanic, my ships time.
Did you send any messages from the Mount Temple? asked senator Smith.
No, I kept out.
Two messages given by Capt. Moore were those that had passed between the Titanic and the Frankfurt. He said that after the Titanic had adviced the the Frankfurt of its condition it sent out a second appeal to the Frankfurt to come quick. The messages grew weaper, said the officer, until the Titanic operator undoubtly was using his auxiliary, or storage battery. By that time the vessels dynamos hed been rendered useless by the water."
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
11
0
Hi, Arne!

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your consistently excellent postings here on ET. Your messages always contain terrific historical information that everyone here finds extremely interesting and useful, and I thought it was time I expressed my own gratitude to you for sharing your research material with us.

Thank you, my friend!

Sincerely,

George
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
111
258
Hi Arne!

Thanks very much for that article -- it is appreciated. I find the headline interesting -- 'Three Ships...' and it is interesting as to the fact that such a story was published as early as it was. As George said, it is very much appreciated, and interesting; a hearty thanks for posting here.

Hi David!

Thanks for your link -- and analysis of the Mount Temple. Leslie Harrison presumably gives a full analysis of the Mount Temple, then, but does he say that she was the other mystery ship? (I've never read his books or anything.)

Best regards,

Mark.
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
11
0
Hi, Mark!

>Leslie Harrison presumably gives a full analysis >of the Mount Temple,

"Presumably" being the operative word. . . :)

Among many other things, Harrison never breathes a word about the Mt. Temple's sighting of the Californian half-a-dozen miles north of the disaster site just after the Californian had begun her first westward traverse of the icefield.

>(I've never read his books or anything.)

Be sure to read the two inquiries before you read Harrison -- that way you'll be fully aware of the information that Harrison doesn't want you to know.

All my best,

George
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
111
258
Hi George!

I think Harrison has missed a rather important piece of evidence there! Seriously, I doubt if I ever will read Harrison -- whilst Reade (anti-), Harrison (pro-) and Padfield (pro-) all wrote comprehensive books, I get the impression that each set out to prove a point. That is not what is needed. With regard to the Californian incident, although it is hard to be neutral, we need an objective historical analysis. Evidence (all of it) followed by sound reasoning and interpretation.

Best regards.

Mark.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,039
292
353
Harrison is worth reading. He was close to Captain Lord in his last years and his impressions are worth considering. He gives a lot of detail about his attempts to get Lord's case reconsidered.

Just remember that he was not trying to write history. He was effectively a union official trying to prove that a member didn't get caught with his fingers in the till. Counsel for the defence doesn't set out the case for the prosecution.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
111
258
Hi!

I suppose I might read his information on Captain Lord and his later life, then. But I still doubt that I will be reading the chapters concentrating on the sinking itself and Californian's actions. From what I have read elsewhere, there is so much dismissal (or no mention of) key evidence. I barely understand Californian's role based on the sometimes conflicting evidence at the British enquiry, so I would get really confused if I started reading that the ship Californian sighted came from the SW.

Although this started off as a Mount Temple thread, which we can hopefully maintain, I think that Californian's Officers at the enquiries gave evidence which appears completely self destructive. If I remember rightly, Stone didn't answer two questions at all; and Mersey announced during Stewart's questioning that '...you do not make a good impression upon me, at present.' It was even suggested to Captain Lord: 'do try to do yourself justice.' Considering their performance at the enquiries, I really don't think that they did make an effort 'to get their stories straight' -- if they did, they certainly did a terrible job of it. Yet there is no evidence in this regard of any 'story sttaightening.'

Best regards,

Mark.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads