Mystery Ship in the distance

[Roy Kristiansen]

Hi, Dave and all!

As frequently happens when I go looking for something, I stumble across something entirely different that's equally interesting. That is to say, I got myself sidetracked. Nonetheless, here are the few tidbits I came up with:

From the manufacturer's advertising, quoted by Leslie Reade:

[The Cotton Powder Co. advertises them] "as a SUBSTITUTE for both GUNS and ROCKETS in passenger and other vessels . . . The necessity of carrying guns and rockets is entirely obviated and accidents consequently minimized . . ."

"Socket distress signals are fired from a socket, ascend to a height of 600 to 800 feet, and then burst with the report of a gun and the stars of a rocket."

" . . . [They can be] seen and heard further than any other means."

**************

Gracie: "I was on the Boat Deck when I saw and heard the first rocket, and then successive ones sent up at intervals thereafter [emphasis added]."

Lightoller: "At this time we were firing rocket distress signals, which explode with a loud report a couple of hundred feet in the air [emphasis added]."

Lowe: "They [rockets, or "detonators"] were incessantly going off. They were nearly deafening me."

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Paul: You are were not wrong. 3/O Groves reported the ship's head was pointing NE when he first the lights of the steamer coming up abaft their starboard beam. He guessed it was about 3 points abaft but he admitted he did not take bearings on the ship as it approached. When he left the bridge about 12:15, after Stone had his eyes adjusted to the dark, he said the ship was pointing ENE, something Stone verified as well. The observed ship at that time had been stopped for over a 1/2 hour. Looking at the regulations on sidelight and mast lights, they were expected to cover an arc from ahead to 10 points abaft the beam. When we put all this information together we get a clear picture. When the Californian was pointing NE her mast lights and sidelight would not be visible. Her stern light should have been seen, but as the regulations say, a stern light is required to visible for a minimum of 1 mile, while sidelights are 2 miles, and mastlights 5 miles, respectively. Stern lights in general were not required to be as bright as the other two types of navigation lights. With single stationary stern light out there it would be easy, as you said, for it to be mistaken as a star. When the Californian swung 2 points to the ENE, then both mastlights and the green sidelight would have become visible. And was about this time that the mastlights would first be noticed. The situations would be as shown below. First diagram would be before 12 AM; the second diagram would be about 12:15 AM. (Again, based on longitude considerations for local apparent noon on Apr 14th, the time difference between the the two ships is about 10 minutes with the Titanic time ahead.)

 

[Paul Rogers]

Thanks for the visuals Sam.

A few questions, if I may: Your diagrams show Californian swinging to starboard whilst Titanic remains stationary. I would have assumed that both ships would have been swinging, if the swing was attributed to the current alone.

I expect you are assuming that Californian's swing was due to her rudder being left at hard-a-port (1912 orders) whereas Titanic's rudder was placed amidships after the allision. Have I got that right?

Is there any evidence from Titanic witnesses that she remained facing (roughly) NNW throughout the night? I appreciate the bow wreck is pointing North, but this doesn't absolutely guarantee that she sank facing in that direction, does it?

 

[David Billnitzer]

Hi Roy:

Many thanks for posting that information from the Cotton Powder Company. For the moment, unless they were guilty of false advertising, I have to believe that their "report of a gun" took place somewhere 600 to 800 feet in the air. ;-)

Thanks again.


Hi Paul:

QM Rowe said:
Q 17669. Was your vessel's head swinging at the time you saw this light of this other vessel? - I put it down that her stern was swinging.
Q 17670. Which way was her stern swinging? - Practically dead south, I believe, then.
Q 17671. Do you mean her head was facing south? - No, her head was facing north. She was coming round to starboard.
Q 17672. The stern was swung to the south? - Yes.
Q 17673. And at that time you say this white light? - Yes.
Q 17674. How was it bearing from you? - When I first saw it, it was half a point on the port bow, and roughly two points when I left the bridge.

Also, if I remember correctly, Beesley's book says boat 13 rowed forward in the direction the Titanic's bows were facing before she sank, and he deduced that to be roughly NW, because the Northern Lights appeared off their starboard side, and also because they had to turn around and reverse direction when the Carpathia came up from the SE.

Again, I am doing this from memory; someone can probably check Beesley's book to be sure.

Hope that helps somewhat.

Dave Billnitzer

 

[David Billnitzer]

Hi Sam:

I have to say, your diagrams and explanations are always clear and to the point; they're a pleasure to read. That question of why the Titanic lookouts didn't see the Californian until well after the collision comes up over and over. In essence, the Californian was hidden in plain sight until she swung 'round enough for her lights to open up. Hopefully this can put that question to rest once and for all.

I think the question keeps coming up because it's not an easy one to explain. You did a "bang up" job of it.

By the way, I really enjoyed your article; well written, brief and a clear separation between known facts and your opinions or interpretations. It did get me thinking.

Dave Billnitzer

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

Thanks for posting Rowe's account, Dave!

But note what he says:
Q 17670. Which way was her stern swinging? - Practically dead south, I believe, then.
Q 17671. Do you mean her head was facing south? - No, her head was facing north. She was coming round to starboard.

What Rowe appears to be describing is the Titanic itself swinging to starboard - the same as the Californian? Maybe the Titanic pointing north, has a little less to do with the hard-a-port manuever, and a bit more with the current?

Just a thought.

 

[Michael F. Barratt]

Bearing in mind the strength of the Labrador current, I would agree with this.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Thanks David for your kind comments. As you pointed out both ships were swinging somewhat that night. The Titanic only about 2 points over the time that Rowe was on the bridge. Rowe was very specific in describing her stern as facing "dead south." This is likely a compass direction. He was also on the bridge at the time and within easy access of the compass there.

The swinging of both ships was likely caused by very light and somewhat variable wind. It is not the same as ships you see at anchor in a harbor. There a ship swings mostly because of current since it cannot move with the current being tied to the ground by anchor. In the open sea both ships would drift with the current. There would be no flow through the water. Swinging would be caused mostly by wind affects unless there is some current gradient (like a wind sheer on an airplane) that was less than a ship length. On the Californian the tendency to swing would be amplified by the rudder position. Lord left the rudder hard-aport after she stopped for the night. It is like they do with a sailing vessel in storm where they lash the helm and mainsail to one side, back the jib to the other side. The intent is to make no headway so as not to be carried off by the wind.

 

[John Flood]

Hi Sam,

Your diagrams certainly go some way in explaining as to how the ship was not seen by Titanic until 12.20am. I just have a few nagging doubts though.

From my understanding, for the ship to be Californian it would have to be very far off course, as it was on the Boston track, and Titanic was five miles south of the New York track. It would have to have covered a lot of ground to get from its 10.21pm stopped position to its 12.20am position, which I am assuming is only a few miles from Titanic. Any thoughts?

All the Best,
John.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Hi John: Good question since that point is always brought up by Senan. The one word answer is current.

The Californian was headed to Boston, but not directly. Capt. Lord intended to keep her at 42° 00'N when he turned the corner earlier that morning on account of ice reports he had received. It was at noon that he got her latitude with a sun sight. At noon on 14 Apr her latitude was noted at 42° 05'N. He then had her on course 269° true headed for 42°N 51°W. We know this from Capt. Lord's affidavit 25 June 1959. By 6:30 PM Californian's DR location was at 42° 03'N, 49° 09'W where she passed three large ice bergs which were 5 miles south. We know this from the wireless transmission of record that Cyril Evans sent to the Antillian at 5:35 PM NY time (7:25 PM on Californian).

Master Navigation Message (M.S.G.) from Californian to Antillian (MJL): “To Captain ‘Antillian,’ 6.30 p.m. apparent time, ship; lat. 42º 3’ N., long. 49º 9’ W. Three large bergs five miles to southward of us. Regards. Lord”

Notice that she was already 2 miles south of her noon latitude at 7:25 PM. (Lord would later claim he was at 42° 05'N, the same as their noon latitude.)

At 10:21 PM Californian time, Capt. Lord reversed his engine to bring the Californian to a stop because of an ice field ahead. Officially, he later stated her stopped position at 42° 05'N, 50° 07'W. Notice that he kept her latitude the same as at noon.

Now for some other hard cold facts:

1. The Titanic wreck site is located at 41° 43.5'N, 49° 56.8'W at the center of the boiler field.

2. The bearing to the ship above which rockets were seen from the Californian was SSE magnetic. Both 2/O Stone and 3/O Groves reported this, so we have two officers confirming the same magnetic line of bearing.

3. Capt. Lord gave the compass correction (variation plus deviation) as 22 degrees west. This makes the bearing line to the mystery ship SE true, or 135°.

4. Both the Californian and the Titanic were stopped for the night. The Californian had stopped at 10:21 PM Californian time, and the Titanic was certainly stopped by 12:00 AM Titanic time. In other words the relative positions of these two ships should not change. But the important point is that they both were free to drift with the local current.

5. Since neither the Californian nor the Titanic were moving during those hours except for the local area current, then at the time the Titanic foundered over the position of the wrecksite, the Californian had to be located bearing 315° true from the wrecksite. The Californian could not have been at the stopped position given by Lord at the time the Titanic foundered because that position is way off the line of bearing. No matter how you slice it, the Californian had to drift down to that line of bearing shown on the chart below from wherever she was at 10:21 PM when she stopped for the night. The only question is where on that bearing line do we put her? Once that can be derived, then the distance between the Titanic and the Californian could be determined.

6. From Capt. Lord's 1959 affidavit: “At about 9:10 AM the Carpathia set course for NY... About 11:20 AM I abandoned the search and proceeded due west (true) through the ice, clearing same about 11:50 AM. The Mount Temple was then in sight a considerable distance to the SW of us heading to the westward. The noon position was 41° 33’N 50° 09’W...From this position I placed the wreckage in position 41° 33’N 50° 01’W...” The latter position also given at the British Inquiry (7039).

What does this all mean? The Titanic foundered in latitude 41° 43.5’N, yet the wreckage was observed in latitude 41° 33’N at 11:20 AM. And the latitude of the wreckage was probably accurate since it was based on a noon observation of the sun taken by all of Californian’s officers. So how did the wreckage get down to 41° 33’N from 41° 43.5'N in about 10 hours? The answer to this question, which of course is the the local current, is also the answer to the question of how did the Californian end up on that line of bearing running directly to the NW (true) from the wrecksite when the Titanic foundered.

But more than that, that current must have been affecting the path of the Californian for several hours before she even stopped. Look at the American Inquiry and the table of air and water temperatures provided by Capt. Lord to Senator Smith. Between 12 noon and 4 PM the water temperature dropped from 56°F to 36°F, and then continued to drop till at midnight it reached 28°F. The Californian had entered a cold, strong, southerly Labrador current, the same current that caused the icebergs and field ice to drift that far south. Despite that Polaris star sight allegedly taken by Chief Officer Stewart at 7:30 PM, the Californian was well below the track that Lord had laid out at noon.

As I said in my paper, the mistake Capt. Lord made was afterward, when he tried to cover up the events of the night. It was thought not to be in their interest to be truthful about their latitude once the story broke that Californian had seen rockets during the middle watch. (He even claimed his position was a state secret when he reached Boston). The story of keeping to her noontime latitude was to add distance between the two ships, a distance of at least 19 miles north of the CQD latitude.

 

[John Flood]

Hi Sam,

Thanks for the additional info.

All the Best,
John.

 

[Jon Hollis]

Greetings Sam,
Hope your back heals up well, after all it should be quite sore from all the pats on it that you should have rec'd for all your great research,drawings and keeping us all so well informed. So here comes another pat on the back from me. All the very very best and,
T H A N K Y O U MUCHLY
Jon Hollis

 

[David Billnitzer]

Hi Sam:

I re-read your article yet again today, and more and more I am coming around to thinking you are on to something here. Two points stick with me:

There is that discrepancy between what Stone wrote in his affidavit for Lord, as to what was happening just after 2:00 am, and what he said a few weeks later at the BR Inq, when the fur was beginning to fly. In his affidavit, he does indeed say he told Gibson to tell the captain the other ship had already disappeared, and Gibson's affidavit tells the same story (and his testimony puts the time at 2:05 am).

Yet in his testimony, Stone says:

7972. (The- Commissioner.) Did you say to Gibson, "Tell the Captain she is disappearing," or did you say "Tell the Captain she has disappeared," which did you say ?- I could not have said that she had disappeared, because I could still see her stern light. I saw this light for 20 minutes after that.

So Stone is trapped between his own words; one account written, one under oath. (Too bad the investigators weren't aware of that private affidavit.) In any case, if one of his versions is true, the other isn't, and Stone is apparently caught in a lie here.

Second, I always wondered why Gibson said the Californian's head was falling toward north and east at that one point in his testimony; I had assumed until recently that it was either a misprint in the transcript, or Gibson was momentarily confused. But on re-reading the line of questioning up to that point, I see now (again, thanks to your article) that the timing of that confusion over whether the CA was falling to eastward or westward, came up specifically when Gibson was describing the disappearance of that red sidelight. He could very well have been describing a momentary reversal in the direction of the CA's swing.

One of the Titanic survivors described the mystery lights seen from his lifeboat as appearing, then disappearing, then re-appearing again a few minutes later (maybe Crawford?), and it gave the impression of that ship out there moving irregularly in the current - not swinging consistently 'round in a circle at a steady and irreversible pace, but idly drifting about, just at the edge of visibility. I wish I could find that account now.

Really good stuff, Sam.

Dave Billnitzer

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

Doesn't appear to be Crawford, Dave - I just checked both the US and UK testimonies.

 

[David Billnitzer]

Thanks Bill! I might have gotten two witnesses mixed up. That's the danger of relying on my memory, and doing this while trying to kill time at the office... ;-) It was Wynn I was first thinking of (BR 13336-51) - he said he first saw a red and white light, those disappeared, and a few minutes later he saw just a white light over in the same direction. This would be from Boat 9.

I looked at Crawford again too: he says the light(s) at different times seemed to come nearer, then draw away, but he also says it was there all night, at least until the Carpathia came up later, when Boat 8 gave up and stopped paying attention to it.

I think Sam has a reasonable hypothesis; it seems evident that the distance between the two ships varied during the night, always just hovering on the edge of visibility. It also seems reasonable that the Californian would have slowed down and sped up during her slow swing to starboard during the night, even halting or reversing direction slightly at some point.

Dave Billnitzer