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.
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.
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 r
esearchers around, and often use his work. However, to efficiently gather information is one thing - to understand it, is a different kettle of fish.