Jim Currie
Senior Member
There was - and Captain Rostron saw it.
Jim Currie
Senior Member
I suggest you all log on to The Washington Post edition of 30 years ago -June 30,- read the story of "The Ship That Passed in the Night".
A
Andrew
Member
For the associated lights to correspond there would need to have been two 'mystery' ships in between, both meandering recklessly around an icefield in the dead of night.
Wonder why their consciences never got the better of them in subsequent years....
Wonder why their consciences never got the better of them in subsequent years....
Michael H. Standart
Member
The poaching seals missive doesn't hold up either. There was nothing illegal about hunting seals in 1912, especially out in international waters.
Jim Currie
Senior Member
Not according to some evidence. I quote from the Washington Post:
"The Samson had been sealing illegally off the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland, and Capt. Carl Johann Ring was wary of being discovered with his cargo, even in international waters, Naess said."
Seumas
Member
Jim, you'd tear the rest of us to shreds if we presented evidence like that. It's very poor.
The Sampson was not there and nobody is buying it.
His determined attempts to shut down Leslie Reade's book, his relentless goading of Walter Lord (who never rose to the bait) and his disgusting letter to an ageing and ill Joseph Boxhall show what a nasty piece of work Harrison truly was.
The Sampson was not there and nobody is buying it.
There is an eye opening article on Paul Lee's website about how the self proclaimed "meticulous researcher" Harrison was mighty selective (to put it lightly) with his evidence and has huge gaps in his correspondence.
His determined attempts to shut down Leslie Reade's book, his relentless goading of Walter Lord (who never rose to the bait) and his disgusting letter to an ageing and ill Joseph Boxhall show what a nasty piece of work Harrison truly was.
Michael H. Standart
Member
The Washington Post is hardly a law book, and in any event, it has been shown that the Samson was nowhere in the region that night anyway.
There would be no reason for Captain Ring to worry about being caught doing something in a place where he never was to begin with.
About Harrison, keep in mind he was an advocate. You don't pay people like that to be nice. You pay them to...well...be your advocate. If I'm in a situation where I need an advocate, I kinda hope s/he would be a bit of a snake!
There would be no reason for Captain Ring to worry about being caught doing something in a place where he never was to begin with.
About Harrison, keep in mind he was an advocate. You don't pay people like that to be nice. You pay them to...well...be your advocate. If I'm in a situation where I need an advocate, I kinda hope s/he would be a bit of a snake!
Seumas
Member
The only law regarding seal harvesting in effect during 1912 that I could find applied only to the North Pacific.
In any event, there is cast iron proof the Sampson was not there. It's pointless trying to prove she was there.
Of course, we may be about to go down the highly predictable "evidence was faked" route which is the sign of straws are being clutched.
In any event, there is cast iron proof the Sampson was not there. It's pointless trying to prove she was there.
Of course, we may be about to go down the highly predictable "evidence was faked" route which is the sign of straws are being clutched.
Jim Currie
Senior Member
How are you Seamus?
There is zero chance of me ripping anything up, because as you will have observed: very seldom, if ever, does anyone produce a personal, constructive, counter-argument to any points I make. I am usually confronted by a vague reference to a book or left staring at someone's back (metaphorically speaking).and/or negatively characterised.
If however, someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, and I know of substantial evidence concerning that claim - I will draw attention to it. As you know, it is known as considering all possibilities.
I did not claim Samson was the mystery ship - just drew attention to a little-known story and to a couple of other mystery vessels -all of which has been studiously ignored
How do any of us know that the authors of the Samson story were mistaken? Both were extremely well qualified for the task - particularly
Lt, Commander (Captain)Craig McLean who was the Director of NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration. He served aboard hydrographic survey ships, oceanographic, and fisheries research ships, and was also actively associated with the wreck of Titanic. Are you suggesting that he lied about the story of Samson? Did you know that story existed?
As for Paul? I admire him as probably one of the best Titanic researchers around, and often use his work. However, to efficiently gather information is one thing - to understand it, is a different kettle of fish.
Seumas
Member
Hi Jim, aye very well thanks. Hope you are well too.
Yes, Jim, I do indeed firmly suggest that Captain McLean read material which may have been highly inaccurate or selectively edited.
During the eighties and nineties, the Sampson story saw a re-birth despite evidence already existing that disproved it. The Titanic had been found, there was great interest, sensational stories were in abundance. Further research has only hardened the case against the Sampson being there.
The Sampson story has been comprehensively destroyed. Even Leslie Harrison of all people, realised he would be wasting his time pursuing this ship because she was not there.
Jim, I also remind you that Dr Paul Lee is not just some other casual researcher. He is an academic with a PhD in nuclear physics and as such is used to analysing highly complex and challenging data and information.
Yes, Jim, I do indeed firmly suggest that Captain McLean read material which may have been highly inaccurate or selectively edited.
During the eighties and nineties, the Sampson story saw a re-birth despite evidence already existing that disproved it. The Titanic had been found, there was great interest, sensational stories were in abundance. Further research has only hardened the case against the Sampson being there.
The Sampson story has been comprehensively destroyed. Even Leslie Harrison of all people, realised he would be wasting his time pursuing this ship because she was not there.
Jim, I also remind you that Dr Paul Lee is not just some other casual researcher. He is an academic with a PhD in nuclear physics and as such is used to analysing highly complex and challenging data and information.
Jim Currie
Senior Member
No, the WP is not, Michael, but one of the authors of the piece - Lt Commander McLean was, as well as being Depute Director of the NOAA.The Washington Post is hardly a law book, and in any event, it has been shown that the Samson was nowhere in the region that night anyway.
There would be no reason for Captain Ring to worry about being caught doing something in a place where he never was to begin with.
About Harrison, keep in mind he was an advocate. You don't pay people like that to be nice. You pay them to...well...be your advocate. If I'm in a situation where I need an advocate, I kinda hope s/he would be a bit of a snake!
Jim Currie
Senior Member
Seamus,
McLean Co-authored that piece in 1991. He was a member of a large group of researchers studying the subject.
I suggest you quote the 'substantial' research you refer to, and the qualifications of the researcher
As for Paul? I am well aware of his academic qualifications having corresponded with him in the past. However, Titanic was not a space ship and physic is physics.
As an academic, his strength lies in information-gathering techniques. The accuracy of his evaluation of the information depends on his technical knowledge of the subject matter. In that, he is no more expert than you, Mike or any other non-qualified member.
Paul was at one time a regular contributor to this site.
Seumas
Member
Jim, sorry but you are not convincing me. Not one bit.
Sam Halpern, Paul Lee etc have fully convinced me of what the truth was. There is no more I will add.
Sam Halpern, Paul Lee etc have fully convinced me of what the truth was. There is no more I will add.
Arun Vajpey
Member
Agreed, but by mentioning one of those names here you have opened up the proverbial Hornet's Nest. We may not want to add anything but there will be 'other' posts from here to eternity.
A vacation (at least from this thread) sounds like a good idea. I think it would not be a bad idea to follow Kent Layton's example. In fact, I think that I will.
Seumas
Member
You are right Arun. It's not worth it.Agreed, but by mentioning one of those names here you have opened up the proverbial Hornet's Nest. We may not want to add anything but there will be 'other' posts from here to eternity.
A vacation (at least from this thread) sounds like a good idea. I think it would not be a bad idea to follow Kent Layton's example. In fact, I think that I will.
In fact, if anyone wants to believe in fairy tales about the Mount Temple, Sampson, Campanello, Kura, Almerian, etc then the very best of luck to them.
You, I and a great many others however will not be joining them anytime soon because we are satisfied with the evidence the likes of Mssrs Halpern, Lee, Gittins, Billnitzer & Reade have unearthed and analysed over the years.
Some threads about "the ship that stood still" have been much, much worse in the past.
About twenty years ago on ET, George Behe had to put up with a lot of what I would call bullying from a certain Titanic author I will not name. All because Mr Behe was just so damn good at spotting this certain authors slapdash research and selective use of evidence.
