Bill Wormstedt
Member
Boat 9 - left the Titanic at 1:20 or so. Does this fit with the swing of Californian?
Crawford - yes, that is what I saw he said, too.
Crawford - yes, that is what I saw he said, too.
Mystery Ship in the distance
- Thread starter Matt Pereira
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mystery ship
David Billnitzer
Member
Hi Bill:
Boat 9 @ 1:20 puts her in the water at just about the same time Gibson is arriving back on the bridge of the Californian to watch the big show (assuming Californian time is about fifteen minutes behind Titanic time). So it could fit. I wasn't trying necessarily to line up the times though; Wynn doesn't say when he saw the other ship do whatever it was doing.
What Sam got me to think about was that slow swing during the night; I always assumed it was one slow, steady, continuous movement. But that seems too mechanical now that I think of it: at the very least, the Californian was surrounded by the loose ice; didn't Gill's bunkmate even describe it bumping alongside the ship? Depending on its size, amount, where it was grinding along (if at all) - seems like those kinds of unknown variables could impede and/or help push the Californian along in her swing, or have some varying effect at least.
Dave Billnitzer
Boat 9 @ 1:20 puts her in the water at just about the same time Gibson is arriving back on the bridge of the Californian to watch the big show (assuming Californian time is about fifteen minutes behind Titanic time). So it could fit. I wasn't trying necessarily to line up the times though; Wynn doesn't say when he saw the other ship do whatever it was doing.
What Sam got me to think about was that slow swing during the night; I always assumed it was one slow, steady, continuous movement. But that seems too mechanical now that I think of it: at the very least, the Californian was surrounded by the loose ice; didn't Gill's bunkmate even describe it bumping alongside the ship? Depending on its size, amount, where it was grinding along (if at all) - seems like those kinds of unknown variables could impede and/or help push the Californian along in her swing, or have some varying effect at least.
Dave Billnitzer
David Billnitzer
Member
Sam:
I am with you all the way on your post above.
Great point about Stone and when he first related the other ship changing her bearing toward the SW. First or seventh rocket? Hmmm... ;-) You are illustrating that Stone is just as slippery as Lord when it comes to changing the details in their versions of the events that night. Until this, I had more often than not been ready to give Stone the benefit of the doubt, but I am less willing now. The two of them (Lord and Stone) truly tried to pass this hot potato back and forth, didn't they?
Agreed, no mystery at all about the red light seen from the lifeboat(s). Wynn might well have seen the effect of the red light being shut-in and the stern light opening up as the CA swung round. I think I merged Crawford's (sometimes nearer and sometimes farther away) and Wynn's(disappearing and re-appearing) descriptions in my mind when I was posting yesterday.
It's been nearly ten years since I first delved into the Californian at any length to create my own website, and I have stayed away from it for quite a while since then. However, you woke me back up - like I said in the other thread, it's the first analysis in a long time to get me take a look at it with fresh eyes. "Just when I thought I was getting out, they pulled me back in!" (Michael Corleone) ;-)
One question, and feel free to answer me privately if you prefer, but what's your take on Stone's claim that he didn't think the rockets went high enough (ie, only to half the height of the masthead light)? I have thought he was grasping at whatever he could to defend his lack of initiative (and that he might have invented this detail after the fact), but I am interested in your opinion. Too bad Gibson never recorded how high the rockets went.
Dave Billnitzer
I am with you all the way on your post above.
Great point about Stone and when he first related the other ship changing her bearing toward the SW. First or seventh rocket? Hmmm... ;-) You are illustrating that Stone is just as slippery as Lord when it comes to changing the details in their versions of the events that night. Until this, I had more often than not been ready to give Stone the benefit of the doubt, but I am less willing now. The two of them (Lord and Stone) truly tried to pass this hot potato back and forth, didn't they?
Agreed, no mystery at all about the red light seen from the lifeboat(s). Wynn might well have seen the effect of the red light being shut-in and the stern light opening up as the CA swung round. I think I merged Crawford's (sometimes nearer and sometimes farther away) and Wynn's(disappearing and re-appearing) descriptions in my mind when I was posting yesterday.
It's been nearly ten years since I first delved into the Californian at any length to create my own website, and I have stayed away from it for quite a while since then. However, you woke me back up - like I said in the other thread, it's the first analysis in a long time to get me take a look at it with fresh eyes. "Just when I thought I was getting out, they pulled me back in!" (Michael Corleone) ;-)
One question, and feel free to answer me privately if you prefer, but what's your take on Stone's claim that he didn't think the rockets went high enough (ie, only to half the height of the masthead light)? I have thought he was grasping at whatever he could to defend his lack of initiative (and that he might have invented this detail after the fact), but I am interested in your opinion. Too bad Gibson never recorded how high the rockets went.
Dave Billnitzer
Bill Wormstedt
Member
"Just when I thought I was getting out, they pulled me back in!"
Michael Corleone? I thought it was Joey Tribiani!
Michael Corleone? I thought it was Joey Tribiani!
David Billnitzer
Member
Sam:
You and I are thinking along similar lines then, when it comes to the "half the height" of the masthead light issue. I thought he was tap dancing as fast as he could.
One would think that in the context of the exchange between Stone and Gibson ("lights look queer, now;" "big side out of the water;" "ship does not fire rockets for nothing;" etc), that IF Stone really thought the rockets didn't go high enough, he would have commented on it to Gibson in the course of those conversations.
It is tempting to speculate on the reactions of Stone's colleagues the next morning. We have Stewart waking up Evans ("For God's sake get to your key; there is a ship that's been firing rockets and we have done nothing!"); Stewart's initial thoughts that "something had happened" and his acknowledgment that white rockets meant distress; Groves bounding out of bed and across the hall to Stone's room ("Is this right about the Titanic?" - "Yes, and I saw rockets in my watch."), etc etc.
You can imagine as the enormity began to sink in of what had transpired just a few miles away from them, how they must have all turned to Stone with wondering, questioning eyes and begun to badger him. And Stone having to decide whether to let it be known that he had notified the captain three times (and thereby making it Lord's fault), or to try to minimize what he had seen (rockets didn't go high enough; ship seemed to be steaming away; etc).
"...What I believe is that Stone realized that he was seeing distress signals and needed an excuse for not really doing anything..."
Yep, I think you're right. I also wonder if he was trying to be careful not to get Lord angry at him - at least not this early in the unfolding events (that is, the morning of the disaster). By the time he was asked to write his private account, and later give testimony in England, he may have been more willing to point fingers (eg at the Inquiry: "I informed the master, and let him judge.")
Dave Billnitzer
You and I are thinking along similar lines then, when it comes to the "half the height" of the masthead light issue. I thought he was tap dancing as fast as he could.
One would think that in the context of the exchange between Stone and Gibson ("lights look queer, now;" "big side out of the water;" "ship does not fire rockets for nothing;" etc), that IF Stone really thought the rockets didn't go high enough, he would have commented on it to Gibson in the course of those conversations.
It is tempting to speculate on the reactions of Stone's colleagues the next morning. We have Stewart waking up Evans ("For God's sake get to your key; there is a ship that's been firing rockets and we have done nothing!"); Stewart's initial thoughts that "something had happened" and his acknowledgment that white rockets meant distress; Groves bounding out of bed and across the hall to Stone's room ("Is this right about the Titanic?" - "Yes, and I saw rockets in my watch."), etc etc.
You can imagine as the enormity began to sink in of what had transpired just a few miles away from them, how they must have all turned to Stone with wondering, questioning eyes and begun to badger him. And Stone having to decide whether to let it be known that he had notified the captain three times (and thereby making it Lord's fault), or to try to minimize what he had seen (rockets didn't go high enough; ship seemed to be steaming away; etc).
"...What I believe is that Stone realized that he was seeing distress signals and needed an excuse for not really doing anything..."
Yep, I think you're right. I also wonder if he was trying to be careful not to get Lord angry at him - at least not this early in the unfolding events (that is, the morning of the disaster). By the time he was asked to write his private account, and later give testimony in England, he may have been more willing to point fingers (eg at the Inquiry: "I informed the master, and let him judge.")
Dave Billnitzer
Dave Gittins
Member
Sam may be onto something with this swing business. Californian had swung to the NE as she stopped. The wind was then against her port side and she began to swing in a clockwise direction.
After some time, she would have reached a point where the wind was against her starboard bow. This wouldn't stop her instantly. She must have displaced something of the order of 6,000 tons. Her momentum kept her turning clockwise until the wind overcame it and sent her back in an anticlockwise direction.
Of course, a change in the wind's strength and/or direction would complicate the story. Whatever the case, it's quite possible that the ship didn't turn at a constant speed and in the same direction. Such a situation would have been confusing to Stone, who wasn't exactly the brightest of seamen.
After some time, she would have reached a point where the wind was against her starboard bow. This wouldn't stop her instantly. She must have displaced something of the order of 6,000 tons. Her momentum kept her turning clockwise until the wind overcame it and sent her back in an anticlockwise direction.
Of course, a change in the wind's strength and/or direction would complicate the story. Whatever the case, it's quite possible that the ship didn't turn at a constant speed and in the same direction. Such a situation would have been confusing to Stone, who wasn't exactly the brightest of seamen.
David Billnitzer
Member
Dave and Sam:
The wind that night was described as a "flat calm" and "light airs and calms" (Stone's affidavit) and so on. I realize this is subjective, but in your experience, is that enough to nudge the Californian around to affect her swing? Boat #3, which was trying to reach the light to the north, did say they were trying to keep their head to the wind, so the breeze that came up during the night, came down from the north.
In an earlier post above, I was thinking out loud about the loose ice and growlers surrounding the Californian; could that also have had any effect? Gill said his bunkmate asked about the ice, because they could hear it grinding alongside.
Dave Billnitzer
The wind that night was described as a "flat calm" and "light airs and calms" (Stone's affidavit) and so on. I realize this is subjective, but in your experience, is that enough to nudge the Californian around to affect her swing? Boat #3, which was trying to reach the light to the north, did say they were trying to keep their head to the wind, so the breeze that came up during the night, came down from the north.
In an earlier post above, I was thinking out loud about the loose ice and growlers surrounding the Californian; could that also have had any effect? Gill said his bunkmate asked about the ice, because they could hear it grinding alongside.
Dave Billnitzer
Dave Gittins
Member
We have Captain Lord's word for the wind. He said her head blew around. (AI: page 732).
I'm used to seeing large ships swinging at anchor at our quarantine anchorage. It seems to take very little to swing them. They have plenty of wind resistance.
Remember the ice was moving with the ship. It's the wind relative to the water that will affect the ship.
I'm used to seeing large ships swinging at anchor at our quarantine anchorage. It seems to take very little to swing them. They have plenty of wind resistance.
Remember the ice was moving with the ship. It's the wind relative to the water that will affect the ship.
Noel F. Jones
Member
“I'm used to seeing large ships swinging at anchor at our quarantine anchorage. It seems to take very little to swing them. They have plenty of wind resistance.”
Dave, a moment’s reflection will tell you that a ship at anchor has a node external to herself about which she may pivot.
On the other hand, a vessel dead in the water will respond as a free-free beam. She will fall approximately broadside-on to a wave pattern. As for wind pressure my understanding is that she would respond to the greater moment about her immersed centre of lateral resistance which approximates amidships. This response would be modified by the disparate wind pressure impinging upon her deck erections. In most profiles c.1912 the greater area subtended by deck erections and therefore the greater resistance is abaft the neutral point. An examination of Californian’s profile should give an indication of how she would respond to a shift in wind direction.
Noel
Dave, a moment’s reflection will tell you that a ship at anchor has a node external to herself about which she may pivot.
On the other hand, a vessel dead in the water will respond as a free-free beam. She will fall approximately broadside-on to a wave pattern. As for wind pressure my understanding is that she would respond to the greater moment about her immersed centre of lateral resistance which approximates amidships. This response would be modified by the disparate wind pressure impinging upon her deck erections. In most profiles c.1912 the greater area subtended by deck erections and therefore the greater resistance is abaft the neutral point. An examination of Californian’s profile should give an indication of how she would respond to a shift in wind direction.
Noel
Dave Gittins
Member
I'm aware that being anchored is not the same as being adrift. The question before the court was "...is that enough to nudge the Californian around to affect her swing?" In my opinion, a light breeze would swing the ship, even if she was adrift.
Lord's words suggest to me that the bow fell off from the wind, the wind then being out of the northerly quadrant.
"Well, on our ordinary course, our ordinary course was about west, true; but on seeing the ice, we were so close we had to reverse the engine and put her full speed astern, and the action of reversing turned the ship to starboard, and we were heading about northeast true. When this man was coming along he was showing his green light on our starboard side, before midnight. After we slowly blew around and showed him our red light."
The total testimony has Californian turning clockwise and she would do this if her centre of pressure was somewhat ahead of her centre of lateral resistance. From her profile, it looks pretty marginal. The extra derricks and general rigging on the two foremost masts may have been enough to do the job. I'll stick with Lord's testimony on this subject.
Lord's words suggest to me that the bow fell off from the wind, the wind then being out of the northerly quadrant.
"Well, on our ordinary course, our ordinary course was about west, true; but on seeing the ice, we were so close we had to reverse the engine and put her full speed astern, and the action of reversing turned the ship to starboard, and we were heading about northeast true. When this man was coming along he was showing his green light on our starboard side, before midnight. After we slowly blew around and showed him our red light."
The total testimony has Californian turning clockwise and she would do this if her centre of pressure was somewhat ahead of her centre of lateral resistance. From her profile, it looks pretty marginal. The extra derricks and general rigging on the two foremost masts may have been enough to do the job. I'll stick with Lord's testimony on this subject.
Manon Caillard
Member
Hi everyone,
I just stumbled upon a New York Times article dated 28 Apr 1912 which mentions a ship "Lena" without wireless passing by the Titanic without knowing it was sinking (because of lack of wireless). Could this be the 'mystery ship on the horizon'?
all the best,
Manon
I just stumbled upon a New York Times article dated 28 Apr 1912 which mentions a ship "Lena" without wireless passing by the Titanic without knowing it was sinking (because of lack of wireless). Could this be the 'mystery ship on the horizon'?
all the best,
Manon
Attachments
Seumas
Member
The Lena was named decades ago (as one of several schooner and barque mystery ship candidates by I think Eaton & Haas) but not the slightest concrete evidence has ever been produced to tie her in with the whole "ship that stood still business".
All evidence does point to the "mystery ship on the horizon" being the Californian. No other.
Arun Vajpey
Member
I agree completely.
The Lena is mentioned in Paul Lee's book The Titanic and The Indifferent Stranger but I found it rather difficult to understand Dr Lee's opinion on that because the infomation is mainly in the form of quotes and not easy to decipher for a layman. The way I understood it was that if the Lena was following its track, the Titanic should have passed it around 34 miles to the south, well beyond the horizon. But there is also mention of a westbound tramp steamer named Kelvindale that was slightly faster than the Lena and had passed it earlier that Sunday a few miles to the south (and so closer to the Titanic's route). Dr Lee calculates that the Kelvindale was around 30 miles to the west of the Lena by the time the Titanic encountered the iceberg. Whether that means that the Titanic had not yet passed the Kelvindale, I don't know but either way both Lena & Kelvindale must have been well over the horizon for the Titanic's lookouts.
This is an excerpt from the book that appears on Paul Lee's Titanic page:
I don't recall the Lena being mentioned in Sam Halpern's excellent Strangers On The Horizon but might have missed it. I do not have the book to hand with me at present to check.
Last edited:
Manon Caillard
Member
Hi, I meant to clarify that I agree that the ship on the horizon was the Californian, especially since reading Strangers on the Horizon. It simply surprised me to read about the Lena since I had never encountered that ship before so I thought I would mention it here in case someone had more knowledge about it 
Good day to yous
Good day to yous
