Mystery ship candidates

[Samuel Halpern]

Rostron said that the sighting took place around 3:15, Carpathia was about 45 minutes from picking up the first boat if his time was correct. If that was between T and C earlier, then it had to be pass very close to T and the time she foundered. Nobody saw any vessel very close, by or passing close by, at that time. What always bothered me about that tidbit from Rostron is how he left it. He never said what happened to it after that sighting. We do know that hey spotted a green flare from boat #2 fine off their port bow, almost directly ahead, about then, and they fired rockets in response, but that is all we really know about Rostron's mystery ship. There are others (which shall be unnamed) who try to insinuate that this vessel may have been the one seen from Californian at 4am, which is the time Carpathia arrived by the lifeboat.

 

[Jim Currie]

Rostron said that the sighting took place around 3:15, Carpathia was about 45 minutes from picking up the first boat if his time was correct. If that was between T and C earlier, then it had to be pass very close to T and the time she foundered. Nobody saw any vessel very close, by or passing close by, at that time. What always bothered me about that tidbit from Rostron is how he left it. He never said what happened to it after that sighting. We do know that hey spotted a green flare from boat #2 fine off their port bow, almost directly ahead, about then, and they fired rockets in response, but that is all we really know about Rostron's mystery ship. There are others (which shall be unnamed) who try to insinuate that this vessel may have been the one seen from Californian at 4am, which is the time Carpathia arrived by the lifeboat.

And here's one of the "others". Rostron did not make that sighting up. It was bearing about N30W True. and it was on the east side of the ice and showing (if seen) a red sidelight so was heading in a westerly direction and would eventually have met the barrier. At dawn, Bisset of the Carpathia also saw a vessel about 10 miles to the northward, wrongly identified by him as the Californian. It too must have been on the east side of the ice.
In fact, the records show that between 8 pm on April 14 and the early hours of April 15, there were at least. seven vessels on the western side of the ice barrier.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Mystery ships all over the place. We get it.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Mystery ships all over the place. We get it.

Sounds like a Hercule Poirot plot. Will there be a final reveal ?

(Hats off Sam, for your spot-on prediction of how it would go. Get yourself a drink on me .)

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Arun, I've become a believer in predicting the future. Hope everything by you is going well during these trying times.

 

[Dan Parkes]

Mystery ships all over the place. We get it.

I've yet to dive deep into the murky waters of the "mystery ship" debate (but presently just lurk in the shadows) and so admittedly I am open to alternate theories. But in most things Titanic I have discovered that "Occam's razor" is often the most logical conclusion i.e. that the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate. It certainly seems that if the Californian was not the "mystery ship" then it does necessitate a rather complex explanation, as Sam so succinctly puts it. Perhaps this is an important clue.

 

[Jim Currie]

Mystery ships all over the place. We get it.

An excellent, intellectual contribution. At least I have contributed to the improvement in knowledge... that the earth is indeed a terrestrial spheroid..
"In order to turn around and do something better, we must first escape the vicious circle of self-righteousness and denial".

 

[Jim Currie]

I've yet to dive deep into the murky waters of the "mystery ship" debate (but presently just lurk in the shadows) and so admittedly I am open to alternate theories. But in most things Titanic I have discovered that "Occam's razor" is often the most logical conclusion i.e. that the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate. It certainly seems that if the Californian was not the "mystery ship" then it does necessitate a rather complex explanation, as Sam so succinctly puts it. Perhaps this is an important clue.

Hello Dan.
I agree with you 100%. the application of the Occam's Razor principal would provide the solution.
However, this only works if we start with a "level playing field" i.e. without pre-judgement. Unfortunately those who first considered this question pre-judged despite the presence of two bits of simple evidence. They were never seriously challenged on these and everyone went home happy.
To fend off a challenge to the Occam's Razor approach, those who agree with the pre-judgement had to ignore two essential
but simple bits of evidence. As long as these two arguments remained "in bed", there was no need to defend the pre-judgement, It was when a challenge came, that the elaborate justification engine went into high gear.
The problem is in two parts:
1. Was there or was there not a Mystery vessel... YES or NO.
2. If YES, what was it's name?

"Occam's Razor" approach can be applied to the first, but not to the second.
However, since you mention him, I would point out that he of all people must not have heard of the famous "razor" since he has gone to great lengths in print to attempt to debunk the simple bits of evidence I refer to.

 

[James23]

I would like to point out that the Titanic Inquiry was very specific i.e it primarily focuses on the Titanic and Californian and Carpathia. Very little investigation was done into other ships in the area. It's likely that any mystery ship may not have been British or American. For all we know the mystery ship may have been Asian in origin or a South American vessel. There was no research done about ships from this area.

 

[Jim Currie]

I would like to point out that the Titanic Inquiry was very specific i.e it primarily focuses on the Titanic and Californian and Carpathia. Very little investigation was done into other ships in the area. It's likely that any mystery ship may not have been British or American. For all we know the mystery ship may have been Asian in origin or a South American vessel. There was no research done about ships from this area.

Exactly! They had already got their "Scape Goat" and did not bother looking for anyone else.

 

[Tim Gerard]

For a few years I've been intrigued on and off by the "schooner or some small craft" that Captain Moore of the Mount Temple testified about at the US Senate Inquiry. It's one of those mysteries that we'll never know for sure, and any guess is speculation, but it is intriguing.

 

[Jim Currie]

For a few years I've been intrigued on and off by the "schooner or some small craft" that Captain Moore of the Mount Temple testified about at the US Senate Inquiry. It's one of those mysteries that we'll never know for sure, and any guess is speculation, but it is intriguing.

Certainly is, as is so much of the mystery surrounding what really happened.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

"schooner or some small craft"

It was according to Moore some sailing vessel, but not a steamer. Sailing vessels carried red and a green sidelights (usually oil) and an optional stern light. They did not carry any mast lights. I often wondered why Moore even brought it up since it played no part in anything that transpired. It was a vessel that was crossing his bow from left to right, and Moore was obligated to give way because she was a sailing vessel, which he did. As the vessel got over to Moore's starboard side her red light got shut out. She apparently was not carrying a stern light, but should have lighted a flare-up light aft because she became an overtaken vessel (Article 10 of the rules back then). According to Moore, she sounded a fog horn to draw his attention. It must have been the only thing handy for them at the time.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

A little correction to my post above.
As the vessel got over to Moore's starboard side it was her GREEN light that got shut out, not her red.

 

[Jim Currie]

It was according to Moore some sailing vessel, but not a steamer. Sailing vessels carried red and a green sidelights (usually oil) and an optional stern light. They did not carry any mast lights. I often wondered why Moore even brought it up since it played no part in anything that transpired. It was a vessel that was crossing his bow from left to right, and Moore was obligated to give way because she was a sailing vessel, which he did. As the vessel got over to Moore's starboard side her red light got shut out. She apparently was not carrying a stern light, but should have lighted a flare-up light aft because she became an overtaken vessel (Article 10 of the rules back then). According to Moore, she sounded a fog horn to draw his attention. It must have been the only thing handy for them at the time.

For a few years I've been intrigued on and off by the "schooner or some small craft" that Captain Moore of the Mount Temple testified about at the US Senate Inquiry. It's one of those mysteries that we'll never know for sure, and any guess is speculation, but it is intriguing.

Hello Tim.

Captain Moore was shall we say "frugal" with the truth.

The Rule was that a sailing vessel, when under sail, did not carry a white masthead light or lights. However, if that sailing vessel was also power-driven, then when underway and using her engine, whether using her sails or not, she was required to show a masthead light or lights. By coincidence, the Seal Hunter Samson was a power-driven sailing vessel and if the myth about her were to be true, she could have been in about the place where Moore saw his "schooner" and under sail only.
He also said his sailng vessel gave a blast on her foghorn which means " I am on the starboard tack." This again tells us a little.
If the vessel was on the starboard tack, and the wind was, as seems to have been the case, from the North, then depending on how close she could sail to it, she was on a course between NW and WSW.