Mystery ship article

[Matt Pereira]

I have been doing research into the ship that James Henry Moore described not the schooner but the steamer that they spotted going int he same general direction as they were, I have 3 possible ships that meet his discription right now im going into the search for their logs of that night and their location to get a general idea. If anyone knows of a better description of the ship he saw that he gave I would be greatful to hear it

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Folks:
In a letter that Rowe wrote in 1968 to Ed Kamuda of the THS he talked about many things. When he was describing the light he had seen a point to a point and a half on the port bow he said it looked like a globular light of a ship at anchor 3 to 4 miles away but he realized that it could not have been the case because they were too far from the Grand Banks. He then happened to mention:

"It was out of the question to think it was a star for I reported a light off the starboard quarter and the Capt. lent me his glasses, as he did so he said it was a Planet or a large star, but he said that the Carpathia is not so far away."

The Titanic Commutator No. 156.

 

[Dave Gittins]

Concerning Rowe, his grandson was not very specific. He suggested that Rowe was sure he saw a ship's light but once Captain Smith said it was a planet he considered it settled. A rating doesn't argue with the master.

I'll get out a computer program and see what was off the starboard quarter. It's ages since I looked at this stuff.

 

[Dave Gittins]

A bit of a rough and ready check shows Jupiter off the starboard quarter, but about 20 degrees above the horizon. Hardly likely to look like a ship's light and getting higher in the sky all the time. Rowe's story appears to be a mystery.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The only other candidate star would have been Altair, a magnitude 1 star that was about 7 degrees above the horizon in the east at 03:40 GMT. I took that time since the CQD received by the Carpathia was at 03:35 GMT and Capt. Smith told Rowe that she was heading their way. But 7 degrees is about 14 diameters of the full moon. That seems to be relatively too high up for Rowe to have taken for a mast light. Maybe it was a ship's light that Rowe had seen, and that it was Smith who got it all wrong?

 

[David Billnitzer]

Sam and Dave and Paul:

Doesn't it strike you that 1) Rowe didn't mention this starboard quarter light during either of the testimonies, and 2) nobody else seemed to see it (Boxhall, Pitman, Lowe among others who were working on the starboard side) and yet 3) numerous people - passengers and crew alike - saw the light off the port bow? You'd think at the least if he thought he saw another ship, and was helping Boxhall fire rockets, he might have said something to the 4th officer too.

I am where Dave G left off; it's a mystery at best, and it leaves me wondering if it's possibly an embellishment of his memories after so many years.

Dave Billnitzer

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

Dave B

Hello. I Must agree w/ you it's a Mystery and one which might never be solved. Also I have found your website to be very useful, although I must admit tha I don't Agree w/ all your opinions and I myself have always leaned toward the Pro Californian Side (Some People Might also Refer to this Pro Lord or Lordite, I however Prefer Pro Californian)

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

Keep in mind, Rowe's statement about the starboard quarter light were made in 1963 - 51 years AFTER the event.

 

[David Billnitzer]

Hi Bill:

Thanks, that's where my head was at, too.

Hi Jesse:

Glad to hear you are finding my site useful. And I am glad to hear that you're drawing your own conclusions; that is what it's there for.

I will admit, my site is probably out of date, if not redundant, after the The Titanic Inquiry Project went online. My original intent was to *open up* the testimony from the Californian witnesses, so that students of the case *could* draw their own conclusions, and not be forced to rely only on the paraphrasings of Harrison and Padfield, and to a lesser extent, Haas and Eaton, who were the big proponents of Lord's innocence back then. It grew into much more than that original intent over time, particularly after Cameron's movie came out. My main intent was to put as much of the raw, unedited historical material as possible in one place.

As for myself, I don't quite like the moniker of "anti-Lordite;" I much prefer "Pro-Inquiry." ;-)

Dave Billnitzer

 

[Matt Pereira]

well in my opinion im not for or against lord, im going off the facts and the facts are pointing to a myster ship off the port bow which was losted and belived to have steamed away, Mount temple spoted a schooner that was leaving the area and when he got close the lights went out but the navagational lights were still on if i remember correctly, and then he spoted a mystery steamer which i have 4 ships that fit that discription which im going into detail to find out more about the description. but so far my theory is considering titanic was so much larger than californian it could be quite possible that californian could have spotted titanic but californian was so small that titanic didnt spot her but spoted another ship off her port bow. I remember reading in one of the testomonys that the califorian spotted the starboard navagational light and mast light. I might be mistaken about the navagational side light but if he saw the mast light most likely she would have to be positioned to have it spotted. Not only that but if titanic spotted a stern light on the mystery ship that means the ships stern would have to be seen in a atleast 160 Deg arc which would mean if it was californian she would have to be facing North East to North West. I do have more theorys but im not going to disclose anymore cause im tring to write a book about the near by ships and the sinking basicly and i wouldnt want to give away everything to the book i rather have the book sell to get the answers

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Matt, you may want to review the information on Titanic Navigation and South Australian Cruising Dave Gittins Website[/url] then go to Dave Billnitzer's Website and after you're done with that, compare what you read there with the information and testimony in the Inquiry Transcripts themselves. A lot of the ground you've mentioned has been covered.

That's not to say that any of this will change your opinions one way or another, but they'll have the benefit of being based on the arguements presented as well as the primary sources.

 

[Matt Pereira]

Yes i know that ive been to those sites except the first one. In the first one it even says that californian was off to the North West of titanic. if titanic was facing north west that would put both navagational lights visable. so im thinking californian was more north than north west. Alsoi know its ground that has been covered but it hasnt been covered fully, if it has we would know the mystery black funneled ship that was following the same track as Mount temple. and as i have stated i have 3 or 4 ships that match the black funnel with white stripe. and i narrowed it down even more to about 3 cause it was a single funneled ship, only thing is they didnt mention the number of mast or mast lights

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

Dave:

Your site redundant, because of the Inquiry site? Not at all!

First, you have extra material (such as letters, other testimonies) from beyond the Inquiries. Also, you have stripped away and reshuffled the non-related material (non-related to the Califorian, anyway) to allow the reader to easier see what the witnesses said. And easier allow them to see the contradictions right next to each other.

I sure wouldn't want it to disappear, it is a valuable resource.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Dave: I fully agree with Bill on this. Your site is quite valuable for the reasons stated.

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

Dave B

I Have Read the 3 Pro Californian Books You Mentioned, and other various books on the subject, The MAIB Report, Numerous Articles, and Printed versions of Both Inquiries. Senate Investigation (Congressional Information Service) and British Inquiry (PRO). I Do However have to go to the Inquiry Project sometimes as some the words might be blurry or missing some letters.

Padfield's and Harrison's Books I mainly found useful as Views on the Incident from two Seamans Views, they are however Selective in there Presentation of Events.

Eaton and Haas Were I also thought were selective on the issue, but I found their book to be a nice General Titanic History and liked the Illustrations.

and I also fully agree w/ Bill and Sam on the Issue of your Website.