
Arun Vajpey
Member
Perhaps a shade too long 'under'Yes I do say, Sam, because unlike you, I have served over and under and know what I am talking about.
Perhaps a shade too long 'under'Yes I do say, Sam, because unlike you, I have served over and under and know what I am talking about.
Michael. I remind you and others that this thread by member James 23 was a question regarding the identity of possible mystery ships. Nothing to do with the Californian per se.>>As for the mystery ship being a red herring?<<
Yes, it's a red herring. If there was another vessel there...I'm open to the possibility...than theirs is a seperate responsibility. They own it, Californian does not.
Californian, Lord, and his happy complement bear the responsibility for their actions alone, not somebody elses.
Hi JimNope! Michael
The officers of Californian acted exactly as any other persons faced with the same problem would have acted.
Remember your navy days. When faced with uncertainty, you reported to a senior. It was the senior's duty to evaluate what he was being told by a lower rank and to act accordingly. Here is what Stone told his interrogator:
". I kept the ship under close observation, and I did not see any reason to suppose they were sent as distress signals from this ship...I had had the steamer under observation all the watch, and that I had made reports to the Captain concerning her, and I thought it my duty when the ship went away from us altogether to tell him. it was my duty to do so, and it was his duty to listen to it".
So you can't blame the juniors for doing their job. Nor can you blame the commander if he gave the appropriate orders. This was not "passing the buck". You know as well as I do, a ship is not a Democracy.
As for the mystery ship being a red herring?
As you probably know the expression means to lay a false trail. A false trail away from what?
Consider this: if the evidence of Boxhall had been accepted, then the real culprits in this sad tail would have been those on the ship that steamed within 5 miles of Titanic while she was sinking and crying for help then shrugged and turned away.
This being so, then I ask you and others a simple question:
Supposing by some bit of luck, the identity of the vessel in question is discovered... what would should be the thoughts of those who have twisted existing evidence to fit a popular belief?
Nonsense, Michael You are never too old to have fun.Since I'm getting to old to bang my head against walls, y'all have fun with this.
I'm moving on.
This is a very interesting point. I've never thought about it and as far as I can tell almost proves the existence of some mystery ship be it cargo, fishing or any other type of ship.2. I presume that you and others on this site accept that Captain Smith knew a thing or three about the handling of lifeboats and the sea. That agreed; do you really accept that such a man directed under-manned lifeboats to row across fourteen miles or even 9 miles of ocean to the ship in plain sight, land survivors then come back for more, if he did not think it was possible?
That and the point that Cam raised about Californian being underway at full speed from 6-30 am until 8 am. Was she running in a circle 14 miles from the Carpathia? I think not.This is a very interesting point. I've never thought about it and as far as I can tell almost proves the existence of some mystery ship be it cargo, fishing or any other type of ship.
Hello Paul.
When you Interpret the moving vessel evidence of Boxhall against what criteria do you or, for that matter, anyone else, measure it?
However, leaving that aside for a moment, ask yourself the following very simple question
1. If, as we are asked to believe, Californian was stopped and in plain sight from before the moment Titanic stopped and Captain Smith knew his ship was sinking ten minutes after she did so - why, on God's green earth did he and his officer wait for over an hour before sending up distress signals or trying to contact that vessel by morse light?
2. I presume that you and others on this site accept that Captain Smith knew a thing or three about the handling of lifeboats and the sea. That agreed; do you really accept that such a man directed under-manned lifeboats to row across fourteen miles or even 9 miles of ocean to the ship in plain sight, land survivors then come back for more, if he did not think it was possible?
I have no idea what was in Smith's mind when he directed boats to row to the steamer, drop off the passengers and then row back to pick up more. According to Boxhall, and few others, the lights of this steamer were judged to be about 5 miles off. Assuming that to be correct, and assuming a lightly loaded boat could make 3 knots, then to cover 5 miles would take about an hour and half from the time they started out. Just think out it. Smith told Boxhall that Andrews told him that the ship had about an hour to an hour and a half left. That was during the time they were first taking the covers off the boats. The entire idea of rowing a half loaded boat to this unresponsive steamer to drop off passengers and then row back to pick up more makes little sense to me. Was Smith in some sort of denial by that time? We know from more than one witness that Smith told them to do that.I presume that you and others on this site accept that Captain Smith knew a thing or three about the handling of lifeboats and the sea. That agreed; do you really accept that such a man directed under-manned lifeboats to row across fourteen miles or even 9 miles of ocean to the ship in plain sight, land survivors then come back for more, if he did not think it was possible?
The point I am trying to make to you and others is that Smith would not have contemplated such a thing if he did not think it was remotely achievable, i.e. it was too far away. The problem here is an inability or willingness to accept the normal skills of an experienced sailor when judging distances at sea.I have no idea what was in Smith's mind when he directed boats to row to the steamer, drop off the passengers and then row back to pick up more. According to Boxhall, and few others, the lights of this steamer were judged to be about 5 miles off. Assuming that to be correct, and assuming a lightly loaded boat could make 3 knots, then to cover 5 miles would take about an hour and half from the time they started out. Just think out it. Smith told Boxhall that Andrews told him that the ship had about an hour to an hour and a half left. That was during the time they were first taking the covers off the boats. The entire idea of rowing a half loaded boat to this unresponsive steamer to drop off passengers and then row back to pick up more makes little sense to me. Was Smith in some sort of denial by that time? We know from more than one witness that Smith told them to do that.
If Smith was thinking rationally I believe he should have tried to see that all of the boats were filled to capacity in order to save as many lives as possible. It appears that it was only Smith who came up with the bright idea of rowing to the light to drop people off and then return. He knew Carpathia was coming and could have figured out that she would be there before any boat could make a round trip, assuming he thought the unresponsive steamer was about the same distance that Boxhall did.Considering the feasibility of Smithy's plan and as an aside....
If Capt. Smith failed to take precautions prior to the collision, you don't think he made up for it during the sinking?If Smith was thinking rationally I believe he should have tried to see that all of the boats were filled to capacity in order to save as many lives as possible. It appears that it was only Smith who came up with the bright idea of rowing to the light to drop people off and then return. He knew Carpathia was coming and could have figured out that she would be there before any boat could make a round trip, assuming he thought the unresponsive steamer was about the same distance that Boxhall did.