Order of lifeboat launching


Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
Bill Wormstedt,

I might address your post in the morning.

I am not impressed by your second para, which is the sad old "straw man" approach of the desperate, involving setting up an argument I didn't make (find it from me!!) and then knocking it down.

You are either confused yet again (Don't type so quickly, maybe! Read posts slower, maybe!) or else you are attempting a deception.

Not impressed.

Of course I accept Woolner's testimony about the pistol flashes pertains to the starboard side collapsible. Of course I accept that. Doh!

You were claiming that his remark about Boat D being "ready to lower" was about Boat A, a very public mistake on your part.

I didn't get further than your Straw Man, but I will finish off your argument tomorrow, Bill. I most sincerely promise.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
Paul,

Gracie sez nuthin’ about shots or disorder. I checked — as I didn’t think he did.
Otherwise you boys would have posted it, right?

He does talk, as Brown, Snow and Weikman do, of Collapsible A being lowered.
Just doesn’t mention shots or disorder. But he writes pages about the ship sinking intact...

What are you trying to establish here, by even mentioning Gracie?

I can’t believe you would be hinting at a notion that, because Gracie didn’t report shots at A, that the shots must actually have come at C, the earlier boat?

I mean, are you seriously suggesting that? Come out and say it if you are!

That is, clinically speaking, perverse logic. Utterly perverse!

Could anyone imagine that this is likely — that there are shots and mayhem at the early starboard collapsible, but everything is unremarkable (and unremarked on!) at the later one…

For the record - and I can’t believe I even have to state this - I have no difficulty with accounts of shots and mayhem at the LAST starboard collapsible. That’s perfectly understandable. But it’s Collapsible A. Because there’s no evidence for it being C.

If Gracie is silent on the last starboard collapsible, he’s just silent on it. It means nothing either way. No evidence.

Jeez…

S
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
It is just as I thought:

* Attempts [by those who claim Woolner's starboard collapsible at the end-time was Collapsible C] to deal with my ten Problem Points if this is really the case -

ZERO.

* Attempts by those who claim Woolner's starboard collapsible at the end-time was Collapsible C to give us ten reasons of their own why this should be the case -

ZERO.

Paul Lee has made this statement:

Woolner specifically says that people were swarming into the boat, meaning that it hadn't been lowered yet. In the middle of all that mess was Ismay.
I say: Prove your statement.
Prove that boat was C.
Prove that "In the middle of all that mess was Ismay."

That is the point of this discussion.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
To Bill's effort to justify his, Bill's, changing of the British Inquiry time for the departure of Collapsible C from 1.40am to 2am -

Bill re-revised George Behe's Titanic Tidbits thing on this subject and put his name and George's to their Revised Launch Times and a big copyright sign on it.

You signed off on George's changed time for C, Bill. I presume you checked into it.

You offer no actual testimony here for such a serious decision to change a boat time - other than a remark by Rowe about the time of the sinking (backtracked); it being "twenty minutes" after his boat left.

How reliable is that? Didn't they all virtually suggest that the sinking happened shortly after they left? Isn't it like leaving in the proverbial 'last boat'?

We remember that Rowe's sinking remark is contradicted by other evidence out of his own mouth, which Bill scrupulously avoids dealing with. These parts must be unreliable, yet Bill's sole cherrypick is?

Yet that's the only piece of testimony that is directly related to Collapsible C's time that falls on his side.

You have no other witnesses, and as with the Goldsmiths, I am not going to accept newspaper tittle tattle from unsworn or undeposed persons.
You will appreciate (well, I do from my research into the Irish) that practically every survivor also led themselves to believe, or were led to believe, that they were in Ismay's boat.

Bill said:

>>Rowe's time keeping. See that article for details . George himself published an article with the 2:00 launch time as early as 1991. <<

Here we come to the nub of the matter. Why "modern researchers" arbitrarily changed the departure time of Collapsible C to 2am.

George's publication declares on its front: "Corrections to the commonly accepted version of the sequence in which the Titanic's lifeboats were loaded with passengers and loaded away."

Under Collapsible C, George says this:

Collapsible C was the last boat to be launched from the starboard side. He claims the British Inquiry time as a "misstatement of fact." And who does he rely on? - Woolner!!!!!

FACT: Woolner does not specify which of the starboard collapsibles it is that he sees at the end time.

FACT: There are at least ten problem points for it to be C, rather than A. Woolner better fits with other testimony as to A.

Why does George decide Woolner's collapsible was C?

Gee, he doesn't give a single reason.

He just assumes it.

Based on this coruscating logic, George Behe tries to find a time for the departure time "error" (as decided on a faulty presumption by George) cited by the British Inquiry.

George (and Bill) can't however get away from what pantryman Albert Pearcey actually said as Collapsible C was leaving:

That a man in the boat declared that it was now 1.40am.
Not 2am.
1.40am - and Pearcey states this repeatedly in evidence. (Evidence by a 1912er, not assumption by a modernist.)

Now, to get by this problem, George DECIDES (again! assumption number two!) that this man with the watch is Officer Rowe.

Think about this: George decides that!
Bill Wormstedt, a few posts ago, told us authoritatively that this watch was on a *passenger.*

Passenger or Officer? Shall we wind the man, like the watch, forward or back?

Actually Bill is right. Pearcey said it was a PASSENGER:

10456. Can you give us any idea of how long it was after you had started rowing away from the Titanic before she sank? – No, I cannot. It was 20 minutes to two when we came away from her.
10457. That will help us. It was 20 minutes to two, you remember, when you started rowing
away from the ship’s side – is that right? – Yes.
10458. That is what you mean, is it? – Yes.
10459. Not when you came up on deck, but when you started rowing away? – Yes, when we got away. It was just in time.
10460. How do you remember it was 20 minutes to two? – Because I looked at the time.
10461. That is what I wanted to know. Where did you look at the time? – One of the passengers had the time.
10462. And it was 20 minutes to 2? – Yes.
Now, where are we?

Behe specifically suggests the Pearcey watch was on Rowe, the Quartermaster.

His THIRD ASSUMPTION is that Rowe wound back his watch by twenty minutes, because George would just like it that way. Throw some WMD into the boat while you are at it.

But Pearcey blows Behe's ASSUMPTION out of the water. He says passenger!

An Officer would only put back his watch to reflect ship's expected apparent noon the next day.

A passenger will not do that until he sees the ship's clocks (adjusted) in the morning.

The passenger's watch is running on as normal, and it totally defeats the wind-back argument. Which in itself was always another ASSUMPTION that anyone wound back their watches.

Rowe does not testify: "I wound back my watch." He does not do that and nobody testifies that. They say the ship's clocks were "due to go back" if they mention it.

Pearcey knew Rowe as the Quartermaster. Pearcey does not say that Rowe mentioned any time. Rowe does not contradict what the passenger says - 1.40am.

But how comfortable are we now with a construct that proceeds initially from three sequential assumptions? Just to get started!

We're not there yet.

Family duties call me.

I have much more to post to kill this thing stone dead.

Perhaps this evening, if time allows.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
Senan, Thayer made it clear that he and Long WATCHED the boat descend to the waterline. I'll post more of this and Thayers stuff later on, but I don't know if I'll be bothered considering just how hostile you are.

I mention Gracie to show that at the time boat A was on the deck, water would have reached A deck. And yet Woolner says nothing about rushing back to his cabin for water wings, polystyrene floats etc. to save him from the water on this deck as he crosses over to ultimately get into boat D. Obviously Woolner was such a poor observer that he didn't notice that he was paddling through water to go from starboard to port.

I don't mind debating with anyone, but when it comes to your OBNOXIOUS superiority complex, thinking you, and only you can pontificate on matters Titanic - and lets not beat about the bush- Senan CAN NEVER be wrong - you can debate by yourself from now on. Other people can put up with your vitriol, but not I.
 

Teri Lynn Milch

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2001
1,053
2
0
If boat C left at 2:00am then theoretically speaking

boat #2 left at 2:05am
boat #4 left at 2:10am
boat #D left at 2:15am
boat #B left at 2:20am
boat #A left at 2:25am

My understanding is that the ship was completely submerged under water at 2:20am.

Wasn’t boat #B washed off just PRIOR to the ship going under the water?
If it is true that boat #B left at 2:20am, how is it that Officer Lightoller had time to unfasten boat #B, or at best, be next to boat #B if #B was submerged under water?

The boat times above are theoretical launch times. What about the boat’s loading times? Time was needed to actually load these boats. (and a few extra minutes and/or seconds was needed to load ladies carrying newborns and toddlers). Lightoller loaded AND launched boats #4 and #D. Is it possible he loaded AND launched both these boats in five minutes? I am finding that very difficult to believe, as boat #4 had 49 passengers in it. How could Lightoller load AND launch this boat carrying that many passengers in just five minutes? If I did my math correct, that would be 10 seconds per passenger to step into boat #4. I suppose that is possible, but what about launching the boat? Time was needed to get the boat down to the water.

Boat #D had 21 passengers. If this boat took 5 minutes to load, each passenger would have had only 4 seconds to step into the boat. Again, I suppose they could step into the boat in that time frame, but what about LAUNCHING the boat? Time was needed for the boat to descend to the water, and from what I have read, it is no easy task getting a full lifeboat to the water. The 5-minute theory just doesn’t come out to the math. It does make the 5-minute time frame look impossible.

Also, the Officers would need time to walk from lifeboat to lifeboat, unless the lifeboats were milliseconds away from each other, which is possible. The Officer would then finish loading and launching one boat then turn around and begin the work on the next.

My understanding is that it also takes time to deal with davits - - more loading time.

Are the historically named times, launch times or loading times?

launch - to put (a boat or ship) into the water; set afloat.
(taken from the American Heritage Student Dictionary)

load - to put something into or onto (a structure or vehicle): load a ship.
(taken from the American Heritage Student Dictionary)

If I proposed this all myself, I would propose the loading of the lifeboats began at about 12:10am. The ship struck the berg at 11:40pm, and after that, one half hour was used to assess her damage. I believe the loading began shortly after that.

Using this 12:10am start time, this would give all the lifeboats the time they needed to be unfastened, loaded, and then launched to the water. When talking about unfastening, loading and launching lifeboats, every second counts. Especially when on a sinking ship.

I forgot to factor in lost time (and who knows how much time was lost) due to those who refused to get into boats, those who argued with Officers over one thing or another, e.g. who will take charge, etc etc, and the scramble at boat #A.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
>You signed off on George's changed time for C, Bill. I presume you checked into it.<

Absolutely! The revised times you are refering to contain changes to George's previously published document. I agreed with George's logic for 2 am, and I presented him with some evidence to change his opinion on #10. The revised times were agreed to by *both* George and I. Our 2001 published article (with Tad Fitch) has some differences beyond that, as further research showed more discrepencies in the British times.

>>You offer no actual testimony here for such a serious decision to change a boat time - other than a remark by Rowe about the time of the sinking (backtracked); it being "twenty minutes" after his boat left.<

Absurd. We gave a detailed analysis of why we felt Rowe put his watch back 23 minutes. Besides, Woolner made it clear that the *swung-out* starboard collapsible (Collapsible C) was still unlaunched while Collapsible D was being loaded with passengers. And Woolner's description of going down to A Deck after seeing this, fits very well with Rowe's description of the Well Deck being flooded as they were being lowered.

>a few posts ago, told us authoritatively that this watch was on a *passenger.*<

Nope. Pearcey said that. See 10461 of the British Inquiry.

>>as with the Goldsmiths, I am not going to accept newspaper tittle tattle from unsworn or undeposed persons.<

Seems you don't accept *any* information that counters your own personal agenda. (If you regard newspaper accounts as "tittle tattle," why is there so much tittle tattle in your Irish book -- especially seeing that *this* tittle tattle came from the mouths of Irish immigrants.) It's good to see, though, that you acknowledge that newspapermen (aka "journalists") are not to be believed when they write things for public consumption.

>>You will appreciate (well, I do from my research into the Irish) that practically every survivor also led themselves to believe, or were led to believe, that they were in Ismay's boat.<

Mrs. Goldsmith didn't mention Ismay in her account at all - she mentioned the four Chinese survivors who were in her boat. If you know of four *other* Chinese survivors who were in *another* boat other than Collapsible C, I hope you'll let us know!

>>George's publication declares on its front:
"Corrections to the commonly accepted version of the sequence in which the Titanic's lifeboats were loaded with passengers and loaded away."<

The difference between George and you is that George acknowledges that his small research paper contained errors and has attempted to correct those errors in his subsequent published work. By the way, are you intending to follow George's example and publish a new brand article correcting your false accusations against Johanna Steinke? And did you ever correct "The Middle Watch"? I checked and unless you made some extremely minor change I cannot recognize, I still you blowing your own horn about how great you are to release it - though it had come out earlier from different sources.

>>Why does George decide Woolner's collapsible was C?<

Because Woolner said he was talking about a starboard collapsible that was filled up with people and then *swung out.* The latter point eliminates every candidate except Collapsible C and brings an end to your nonsense. Stone dead!

>>An Officer would only put back his watch to reflect ship's expected apparent noon the next day.<

An officer would put his watch back the same amount that the ship's clocks were put back (in two separate increments) in order to continue keeping proper watchkeeping time.

>>A passenger will not do that until he sees the ship's clocks adjusted) in the morning.<

Your claim is obviously not backed up by the stopped watches of many victims, which showed a wide range of times and proves that passengers were not locked into any specific time-adjustment procedure.

>>Rowe does not testify: "I wound back my watch." He does not do that and nobody testifies that. They say the ship's clocks were "due to go back" if they mention it.<

Rowe was performing his solitary duty on the docking bridge and had no reason *not* to put his watch back 23 minutes at the appointed time of midnight. (It was the *bridge* personel who were preoccupied with other matters and failed to adjust the *bridge* clock.)

> Funny that Murdoch should have to intervene on Collapsible C when it was Collapsible A that had no crewman in command!<

Are you *choosing* to ignore Lightoller's statement that Murdoch was at the falls of Collapsible A during the final moments? Since Murdoch was in the area of C, there is no reason he would not get involved in it, regardless of Wilde or anyone else being there.

>But how comfortable are we now with a construct that proceeds initially from three sequential assumptions<

Are you talking about mystery ships again? ;-)

>Pontificate<

Good word choice, Paul!
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
Teri:

Our timeline has #2 and #4 leaving *before* Collapsible C. For details, see
http://home.comcast.net/%7Ebwormst/titanic/lifeboats/lifeboattable2.htm

We have a time frame of 20 minutes between #4 and D - just barely enough time, IMO, to load and launch. But given the fact that things were obviously getting desperate at that point, possible. I agree, 5 minutes would be a ridiculous time frame for this.

Our times are *launch* times. In our article, we say: "Given the testimonies themselves, it must be understood that any timings assigned to the lifeboats are only approximations. In most cases, accurate times cannot be determined, as even the witnesses themselves were not always in agreement as to how long an event took to occur or exactly when it happened. The times listed below are the present authors' best estimates of the times that the lifeboats *began* lowering away from the Titanic's decks."
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
Teri posted the following list a while back - the passengers of Collapsible C. Added some information about any possible statements they may have made - however, Molony will discount them, as most are from those 'disreputable' newspaper accounts. But they do show *something* was going on at C - regardless of the accounts of those employed by White Star, and may not want to testify to any discord.

>>>
1)William Carter � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
Gave accounts in the NYT and Washington Times of shots fired.

2)Joseph Abraham � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.

3)Gerios Assaf - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
I must assume that she means Maria Assaf, since Gerios died in the sinking. In press interviews Maria Assaf mentions shots fired and a panic, but not clear which boat she was referring too.

4)Eugenie Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 3 yrs old.

5)Helene Baclini � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 mos old.

6)Maria Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 5 yrs old.

7)Solomon Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.

8)Emily Badman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
She was lead to Collapsible C by Edward Dorkings and another passenger who she did not name. According to the Jersey Journal, which recounts Dorkings having helped her, they had to push through crowds to get to the lifeboat.

9)Lee Bing - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.

10)Aiyub Dahir - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 14 yrs old.

11)Margaret Devaney - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 18 yrs old.

12)Choong Foo - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 13 yrs old. Chinaman.

13)Frank Goldsmith - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.

14)William Carter � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.

15)Joseph Abraham � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.

16)Gerios Assaf - not found in either Enquiry. No tesimony given.

17)Eugenie Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 3 yrs old.

18)Helene Baclini � not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 mos old.

19)Maria Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 5 yrs old.

20)Solomon Baclini - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.

21)Emily Badman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.

22)Lee Bing - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.

23)Aiyub Dahir - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 14 yrs old.

24)Margaret Devaney - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 18 yrs old.

25)Choong Foo - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 13 yrs old. Chinaman.

26)Mrs. Frank Goldsmith - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.

27)Frank Goldsmith Jr. - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 9 yrs old.
We've already discussed the Goldsmith issue.

28)Ling Hee - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.

29)May Howard � Found in British Enquiry.
Said the following which indicates some disorder at C: " One of the ships officers grabbed Mrs Goldsmith and myself and pushed us to the edge of the ship where the lifeboat was being filled with women and children. An officer there shouted, 'All men back, women come first.'"
The Orleans American and Weekly News, May 2 1912, pg 1

30)Abraham Hyman - not found in either Enquiry.
For some accounts, see http://home.comcast.net/%7Ebwormst/titanic/shots/shots.htm
However, it appears that Hyman may not have been in C at all.

31)Mary Joseph - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Was 2 yrs old.

32)Peter Joseph - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.

33)Ali Lam - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.

34)Gerios Moubarek - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given. Chinaman.

35)Albert Pearcey � British Enquiry.

36)Albert Weikman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given, but affidavit given, and was printed in �The Ismay Line.�

Other accounts

-Mrs Mary Sophie Halaut Abrahim. In the Greensburg Herald-Tribune on April 22, 1912 gave accounts of panic while she was being placed in her boat. She was rescued in Collapsible C.

-Bjornstrom Steffanson gives an account in the NYT which confirms Woolner's account. He saw shots fired at a lifeboat being lowered before heading to the port side.

--Mrs George Joseph Whabee (Shawneene Abi-Saab), third class, The Sharon Herald, April 14, 1937: She was rescued in Collapsible C and said the following:
I saw George Joseph, [Gerious Youseff] one of my cousins. He pushed me toward one of the lifeboats. Sailors armed with revolvers drove the men away from the boats shouting, "Women and children first!". They shot into the air to frighten the men. Many passengers were overcome with fright."

-Amy Zillah Elsie Stanley, 3rd class
She gave a private account and mentions exactly the same thing as Woolner and Thayer, she does not mention being towed by Lifeboat # 14 or anything like that and indicates she did not see Rhoda Abbott until reaching the Carpathia, which further proves C instead of D.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
I try to engage with arguments here - but there is no attempt, on the other side, to engage with the TEN problem points for Woolner's evidence if the boat he is looking at is actually C.

There is a lot of strange stuff with Woolner. He says he and Steffanson left Boat D was it was about to lower, then went around to the mayhem on the starboard side.

There they saw Murdoch launch a charge, and "Steffanson and I went up to help to clear that boat," then the pair helped pull several men *apiece* ("We pulled out several, each" - "I should think five or six"), out of the collapsible, then "lifted in these
Italian women, hoisted them up on each side and put them into the boat."

Do you see all that?

Why the boy's a hero!

Six men out, first, then lifting, nay "hoisting," Italian women in, until "then that boat was finally filled up" and I said to Steffanson: "There is nothing more for us to do."

Amazing heroics! Uh... but Steffanson, ahem, doesn't say any of this...

Are you seeing my point at all, Paul? I know you are ignoring the ten other problems with the assumption that Woolner's collapsible is C, but do you see any frailty in attempting to build an argument on Woolner?

I'm sure the readership can.

So, anyway... there's Woolner. It certainly seems a long time since Boat D "was to be lowered away," which is why he crossed to starboard.

He's helped to clear a boat. He's hauled out five or six men (ever played rugby, Paul? Tried clearing a ruck?) - doesn't pause for breath, but hoists (ooh, me aching back) Italian women up into the boat, and then, when there is finally "nothing more to do," goes down to A deck.

Yeah, but... why on earth would he go down to A deck, where there are no boats, in the first place? A question that wasn't asked.

(Steffanson won't meet our eyes. He's going: "Don't look at me, Guv.")

So don't give me guff, Paul, about Woolner's evidence, about his water level. I'm just not with you on regarding Woolner as a golden jewel of clarity, for all the reasons I've pointed out.

You're the guy who's relying on Woolner, remember.

Oh yeah. How long did it take him to leave Boat D, cross over, witness shots, see charge, unload five or six men single handedly, replace them with Italian women, think about whether there was anything else he could help with, decide to go for a stroll with his pal below decks on a rapidly sinking ship - then, miraculously, meet up with the very boat he had left "about to lower" BEFORE he personally unpacked and re-packed a lifeboat.

Woolner: "Oh, quite a few minutes; a very few minutes."

Was Boat D really so slow in launching that Woolner (Oops, I see Steffanson sneaking out of the room with his collar up!) was able to perform all these heroics and STILL get into her?

No further questions, Mr Woolner. You can step down.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
Bill says:

"I agreed with George's logic for 2 am" (claimed departure time of Boat C, instead of the 1.40am in the British report.)

He cites Woolner again about his starboard collapsible being swung out, but we know how strange and counter-indicated Woolner's evidence is.

If this is even accepted as a scrap, it is just one. Woolner does not see his collapsible lowered. We know Collapsible C was lowered - its occupants say in good order.

I am happy for this sole "reason for believing Woolner" to stand against the ten I listed earlier for disbelieving the ASSUMPTION (not made by Woolner himself) that he is talking about Collapsible C.

Bill claims that this "brings an end to your nonsense. Stone dead!" and I'll let the readership decide on that.

Back to Bill's agreement with George as to 2am (and not 1.40am) being the correct time for Collapsible C's departure, thereby putting Ismay in the eye of a storm.

This "correction" (for so it is called) is based on a series of assumptions:

1) Assuming Woolner is a credible witness on all points. (See last post).
2) Assuming Woolner is talking about Collapsible C, when his evidence better fits Collapsible A.
3) Assuming Officer Rowe put his watch back twenty minutes in Collapsible C.
4) Assuming the passenger in Collapsible C also put his watch back 20 minutes, for it is the passenger who says that C left at 1.40am, as relayed repeatedly by Pearcey.

All those four assumptions need to hold good for this "2am theory" to even get on its feet.

Rowe does not testify: "I wound back my watch." But you know what? I'm not going to assume that he doesn't.

It is certainly possible.

But look at what George says in his "Corrections to the commonly accepted version of the sequence in which the Titanic's lifebats etc etc" -

"Quartermaster Rowe undoubtedly adjusted his watch..."
Undoubtedly? Admitting no possibility of doubt?

Rowe testified in America:

Rowe: "I felt a slight jar and looked at my watch. It was a fine night, and it was then 20 minutes to 12."

Hadn't put his watch back since the start of his watch then. Unless the collision with the iceberg was at midnight.

Okay, he might have put his watch back later, despite the distractions, but this is an assumption.

Rowe later testifies, again in America:

Rowe: I assisted the officer to fire them (rockets), and was firing the distress signals until about five and twenty minutes after 1. At that time they were getting out the starboard collapsible boats. The chief officer, Wilde, wanted a sailor. I asked Capt. Smith if I should fire any more, and he said "No: get into that boat."
Get into Collapsible C at 1.25am says Wilde. Woolner only mentions Murdoch at his collapsible.

Rowe does not offer: "I should say, Senator, that I put my watch back twenty minutes some time after the iceberg collision. It was really 1.45am." (Still a long way from 2am though, isn't it?)

[Incidentally:
Senator Burton: Did you hear any revolver shots? -Rowe: No, sir.
Not very Woolnerish.]

So, given the assumption about Rowe, let it ride, and we have the passenger now in Boat C (not Rowe) who's telling everyone as it's leaving that it is 1.40am.

First of all, does Pearcey, who reports this, know the difference between Rowe and a passenger? Of course he does! He refers to the Quartermaster through his evidence:

10413. And some of the crew? – Five of the crew with the Quartermaster.
10414. Did that include yourself? – There were three Firemen, myself, and a Quartermaster.

So when he says a passenger had the watch, he means, ahem, yes, that a passenger had the watch.
10419. "I took notice of the passengers..."

If it was the QM who had the watch, he would have said “the Quartermaster,” as he does when specifying Rowe above. And below:
10494. What officer got into your boat? Was there any officer there? – Only a Quartermaster.
10495. There was no officer at all in your boat? – The Quartermaster.

George says in his "Corrections" book, and this is a quote:

Since a man in Collapsible C said it was 1.40am as the boat was being rowed away, we must assume that this man's watch was also running 23 minutes slow.
That's a direct quote from page 4. You can see the words "assume" and "also" - two assumptions about men in the boat having watches that are behind the run-on time.

I don't know about you, but Woolner (see last post) is the basis for this construct (and not Woolner exactly, but Woolner interpreted) and now George Behe is saying that he has made two assumptions about the timepieces of people in the boat.

I'm getting quite worried about this 2am lark for Collapsible C...

Scenario: We're all in the boat. There's this passenger announcing that it is now 1.40am.
Nobody takes issue with him. There is no dispute. "Oh, but it's 2am by my watch!" Smug passenger in reply: "You may have been distracted by the iceberg and the sinking of this vessel, my dear.
"Those of us who know how important it is to have our timepieces adjusted so that they can reflect the next day's noon on a non-existent ship make sure to put first things first."
Rowe: "Well done that gentleman! There are so few passengers who will properly adjust their watches in an emergency. Bravo!"

Okay, those are our four assumptions to get to George's "correction."

Now we have to add some more:

5) Pearcey's own timings are wrong.
6) Weikman's timings are wrong.

PEARCEY

10384. What did you do then? – I went to the boat deck myself.
10385. What was the time then? – Between one and half-past. It was nearly half-past one.
10390. When you got to the boat-deck will you tell us what you saw? – I saw two babies on the deck; I picked them up in my arms and took them to the boat.
10391. Do you know what boat it was you took them to? – A collapsible boat.
He was told by an officer to “get inside with the babies and take charge of them.”

Pearcey's 1.30am agrees with the passenger who says the boat left at 1.40am.

The pantryman must also have adjusted himself, although, you know, it's strange - here's another guy who doesn't mention this in evidence.

But I suppose it "undoubtedly" happened.

WEIKMAN

"I was sitting in my barber shop on Sunday night, April 14, 1912, at 11.40pm, when the collision occurred."

Must have adjusted his watch later, eh? Yes, undoubtedly. Although he immediately starts rushing around (read his affidavit!) and "I helped to launch the boats."

To the meat:

I saw Mr Ismay helping to load the boats.
Did you see him get in a boat?
Weikman - Yes; he got in along with Mr Carter, because there were no women in the vicinity of the boat. This boat was the last to leave, to the best of my knowledge. He was ordered into the boat by the Officer in charge. I think that Mr Ismay was justified in getting in that boat at that time.
And what time was that, my hair-clipping friend, who can work anywhere there are people, who is hardly beholden to Ismay?

I was proceeding to launch the next boat when the ship suddenly sank at the bow and there was a rush of water that washed me overboard, and therefore the boat was not launched by human hands. (Collapsible A).
The men were trying to pull up the sides when the rush of water came, and that was the last moment it was possible to launch any more boats, because the ship was at an angle that it was impossible for anybody to remain on deck.
State further what you know about the case? After I was washed overboard I started to swim, when there was a pile of ropes fell upon me, and I managed to get clear of these and started to swim for some dark object in the water. It was dark. This was about 1.50am, toward the stern.
How do you know it was 1.50am?
Because my watch was stopped at that time by the water.
Here's another guy, Weikman, who supports Rowe's iceberg time, whose run-on time in turn supports Pearcey, whose timing itself supports the 1.40am statement of the man in Collapsible C...

So - six assumptions, thus far, (and all must hold good) to get us to the position where the 2am theory might be a runner for Collapsible C.

Assumptions stacked on top of each other like a house of cards. Built on an interpretation, merely, of Woolner.

I have more, of course. But this post is already too long.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
My god, Molony, you do go on and on don't you? (and on and on and on and on ......)

Some short comments to blow a few holes in your 'logic':

We've addressed the problems with Rowe's times before, no point in beating that dead horse anymore. We believe he reset his watch, you don't. If his times made sense in terms of the whole sinking and other documented evidence, we'd agree with them - but they don't. Rowe also did not say much about many things that happened that night - but obviously he saw and did things he didn't mention! Or don't you believe that either?

>Here's another guy, Weikman, who supports Rowe's iceberg time, whose run-on time in turn supports Pearcey, whose timing itself supports the 1.40am statement of the man in Collapsible C...

So, according to you, Weikman didn't adjust his watch that night and the bridge area actually submerged at 1:50 a.m. Isn't it strange, though, that the British Inquiry (whose timings you accept without the slightest reservation) claims that boat #4 was launched at 1:55 a.m. and that collapsible D was launched at 2:05 a.m. (both launchings taking place *after* the bridge area submerged????)

Since Weikman's apparent support of Pearcey is just coincidental, this means that Pearcey might just as easily have been mistaken about the times he quoted in his own testimony. Careful reading of the Inquires show that *many* people could not been correct with their times - they don't all agree with each other! The trick is not saying they can't be right, since someone disagrees - but trying to figure out what makes the most sense.

>I have more, of course. But this post is already too long.<

You're right, Senan. We ET members can only stomach a limited number of absurdities before we need to come up for a breath of fresh air. ;-)

And Senan - in case you don't know - almost EVERYONE agrees with Rowe's iceberg time! Including George and Tad and I. Don't you?


Moved to a wider focus (and ignoring Molony) for a bit:

Do I believe there could have been shots fired at C? Yes, there is evidence that indicates that may have happened. Do I also believe there could have been shots fired at A? Also yes! Assuming (oh my god, another assumption! Horrors!) someone fired shots around C (an officer perhaps?), to keep the crowd under control, I feel it is very likely the same person could have fired shots for the very same reason at A.

So it is *not* an 'either/or' situation at all, as Molony is trying to make us believe. Shots may have been fired at both!
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
Bill says “I accept George’s logic.”

That’s what Bill says. He thinks George is being logical when he decides to “correct” the British Inquiry time of C’s departure from 1.40am to 2am.

Paul Lee accepts it as well. Because he says there was mayhem at C and Ismay was in the middle of it.

Never mind that the occupants of C don’t testify to anything of the kind, while plenty of those who were left behind do not mention any trouble at C and instead say, like Ismay, that there were no passengers around at the time of the departure.

Bill quotes one part of Rowe in support of his argument, but Bill says he believes there were shots at Collapsible C.

Rowe, who was there, says he didn't hear any shots.

We’ve seen the times given in evidence (my last post) which, on the face of them, clash with George.

Bill and Paul say I'm "pontificating" when I just point out that the witnesses say in 1912. They're pontificating. But George and Bill are just "correcting" the record. But undoubtdly!

They would like all the Titanic witnesses them to please all put their watches back, or fast-forward them to 2am, whichever is required at the time.

You sneer at Weikman, Bill, but you know what?

Weikman didn't just look at his watch. His watch was stopped by the water - after boat C had gone.

And his watch is STOPPED at 1.50am. I am sorry that doesn't suit your theory, sincerely.

We've seen the chain of witnesses lining up to, I suppose you would say, Bill, 'pontificate' against your selfless correction of the record.

Only one of those individuals has to be right about the time in order to destroy the 2am theory. Is it likely that they are all wrong in turn? The theory needs that to be the case.

I find your personal abuse interesting — it seems brought on by my expressing doubts about this theory, as if we should suspend all disbelief and just quietly accept your ponti"correction."

But I like the castigation — because it shows just how (I pause to choose a non-upsetting word) incautious certain people are in their acceptance of the theory over the evidence.

These are the ones who have painted themselves into a corner.

I’m not the one “correcting” the witnesses of 1912. I’m not saying “undoubtedly” about a theory... never mind the stunning irony that it’s positively groaning with doubt.

But I guess it's not nice to be trapped in a corner.

Now let's tickle-test this “2am theory” further, just to make you smile, Bill -

Consider this: Pearcey said it was 1.30am when he was ordered to Collapsible C by Chief Officer Wilde and the Captain. He gets in the boat, it’s lowered, and the passenger says that it is now 1.40am.
Pearcey says (10460/1) “I looked at the time.” Where did you look at the time? – “One of the passengers had the time.”
He looked at the guy’s watch. So Pearcey, if he had put his own time back twenty minutes, would realise that the passenger had put his watch back also… !
A most unusual occurrence.
But he doesn’t say this at the Inquiry. He doesn’t say (as Rowe doesn’t say): “Of course the real time was 2am, because I, the Quartermaster, and this gentlemen had all adjusted our watches or our time.”
How here’s another thing — Pearcey wasn’t wearing a watch. He had to look at the other guy’s. And yet Pearcey, with his 1.30am estimate (unless he has seen a clock elsewhere) is thereby putting the time back twenty minutes in his own head.
Would you, gentle reader, do that?
This is a pantryman. And we are talking about the next day’s ship’s noon, don’t forget.
How likely is this?
Is it as likely as someone flying to a holiday destination having their watch already set to local time on arrival, after a dodgy take-off and in the middle of some worrying turbulence — and then finding the person in the next seat has done the same?

Bill, you're straw-manning again. The readers can see that. I'm not trying to suggest shots were fired at both starboard collapsibles, and I haven't suggested that.
But I am posting you Rowe's evidence (Rowe, whom you liked a while back) that he heard no shots at Collapsible C. I haven't seen any evidence in favour of shots at this boat.

And don't worry Bill. You'll find I can go on and on and on - because there happens to be a mountain of evidence against your 2am theory!
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
You are just like that Celine Dion song, aren't you? On and on and on. Thank god I don't read most of it. I doubt many do read it. Doesn't matter anyway.

To be honest, though, Senan, I don't really care whether you believe our research is valid or not. We wrote our article for serious researchers who recognize a likely scenario when they see one, and we've received feedback and compliments from many well-known researchers whose opinions we value far more than yours. If you wish to believe that Collapsible C left the ship at 1:40, that the Titanic's bridge submerged at 1:50 and that the forward end of the boat deck was under water before Boat #4 and Collapsible D were launched, go right ahead and do so. (As for me, though, I have better things to do with my time than waste it listening to the kind of nonsense you've been coming up with in this thread.)
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
You're right about one thing Bill:

serious researchers who recognize a likely scenario when they see one
And serious researchers also recognise a crock when they see one.

The Assumptions just keep on coming --

Those 2am assumptions so far —

1) Assuming Woolner is a credible witness on all points. (See last post).
2) Assuming Woolner is talking about Collapsible C, when his evidence better fits Collapsible A.
3) Assuming Officer Rowe put his watch back twenty minutes in Collapsible C.
4) Assuming the passenger in Collapsible C also put his watch back 20 minutes, for it is the passenger who says that C left at 1.40am, as relayed repeatedly by Pearcey.
5) Assuming Pearcey's own timings are wrong.
6) Assuming Weikman's timings are wrong.

Let’s see if we can get to Ten!

But first of all, let us remember that within all those assumptions are sub-sets of doubt (such as the ten problem points for Assumption 1). [See earlier post.]

Assumption Number 7: — Lightoller must be wrong.

Lightoller says
(14766) –The last I remember seeing of Mr Wilde was quite a long time before the ship went down.
14767. And Mr Murdoch? – Mr Murdoch I saw practically at the actual moment that I went under water. 14768. He was then working at the forward fall, on the starboard side forward; that is the fall to connect to the collapsible boat.
We remember that Woolner, on whose rickety foundations Bill and George’s “2am theory” is constructed, only mentions Murdoch, as Lightoller confirms, at the collapsible boat (A).

Lights sees him there when he, Lights, jumps onto the roof of the Titanic officers’; quarters to launch the port collapsible (B), the other port collapsible (D) having already been readied.

So Lights is seeing Murdoch at the same time as Woolner, on the starboard side, and neither of them are seeing Chief Officer Wilde.

This is the end-time. This is the time of Woolner’s shots and swarming trouble. This is the time that Paul Lee says Ismay was present. In boat C, Bill telling us that it is 2am.

But ALL the Collapsible C occupants and relevant witnesses say their boat was launched by the Chief Officer — Pearcey, Weikman, Rowe, Ismay, etc.

Check 'em out... where's Wilde when Woolner and Lightoller are seeing Murdoch?

Answer - Not here, anyway.

Even though it was here that Chief Officer Wilde oversaw Collapsible C's departure ...and Collapsible C was long gone. As serious researchers know, because of the evidence.

This is the testimony of the men of 1912, Bill. They stand uncorrected.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
1
166
>But ALL the Collapsible C occupants and relevant witnesses say their boat was launched by the Chief Officer — Pearcey, Weikman, Rowe, Ismay, etc.<

So, what's your point? Yes, there is evidence that Wilde was there. There is also evidence Murdoch was there!

Boy talk about straw man! Sheesh!
 

Teri Lynn Milch

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2001
1,053
2
0
Hi Bill,

I have given your theory a great benefit of the doubt, but I am sorry, for me there is just too much grain going against the supposed departure time of C leaving at 2:00am. THREE (possibly four, Quartermaster Bright’s testimony points to the 1:25 loading time for #C) people claiming the same time frame plus a watch stopping in the water is very sound, and causes me to conclude that boat C left in the vicinity of 1:30am.

I do not see any purpose for saying that people set their watches back. I think that is taking things a bit too far.

Just because Weikman’s watch stops doesn’t mean the ship sank at that time. As is the case with all sinking ships, a water level will continue to rise until the ship is completely covered, at which time it would submerge and then plunder. Weikman may well have set his arm/hand in water at any time during the ship’s sinking.

This is your matrix:

boat #2 left at 1:44am Wilde & Smith
boat #4 left at 1:50am Lightoller
boat #C left at 2:00 am Murdoch & Wilde
boat #D left at 2:05am Lightoller & Wilde
boat #A left at 2:15am Murdoch & Moody
boat #B left at 2:15am Lightoller (washed off)

I do not claim my matrix below to be accurate. I created it so that I could envision it in my own mind according to the testimonies I have read. A * indicates it is based on testimony.

boat #2 left at 12:50am Boxhall, Rowe, Bright Portside*
boat #4 left at 1:15am Lightoller Portside (had 49 people to load, loading took longer)
boat #C left at 1:25am Murdoch Starboard* (45 people)
boat #D left at 2:00am Lightoller Portside (had only 21 people to load, last boat to actually be loaded)
boat #B left at 2:20am Lightoller Portside — washed off, never loaded
boat #A left at 2:20am Starboard — washed off, never loaded

WEIKMAN: “This was about 1.50am, toward the stern.”
“How do you know it was 1.50am?”
“Because my watch was stopped at that time by the water.”
ROWE: “I assisted the officer to fire them (rockets), and was firing the distress signals until about five and twenty minutes after 1. At that time they were getting out the starboard collapsible boats. The chief officer, Wilde, wanted a sailor. I asked Capt. Smith if I should fire any more, and he said "No: get into that boat."”
PEARCEY: 10384. “What did you do then? - I went to the boat deck myself.”
10385. “What was the time then? - Between one and half-past. It was nearly half-past one.”

Quartermaster BRIGHT testimony:

Senator SMITH. And what did you do after that? I want you to tell, in your own way, just what you did after you dressed yourself.
Mr. BRIGHT. I went out to the after end of the ship to relieve the man I should have relieved at 12 o'clock, a man by the name of Rowe. We stood there for some moments and did not know exactly what to do, and rang the telephone up to the bridge and asked them what we should do. They told us to bring a box of detonators for them - signals. Each of us took a box to the bridge. When we got up there we were told to fire them - distress signals.
Senator SMITH. Who fired them?
Mr. BRIGHT. Rowe and I, and Mr. Boxhall, the fourth officer.
Senator SMITH. How long did you continue firing the rockets?
Mr. BRIGHT. Six were fired in all, I think.
Senator SMITH. One at a time.
Mr. BRIGHT. Yes, sir; at intervals.
Senator SMITH. At intervals of how long?
Mr. BRIGHT. I could not say. After we would fire one we would go and help clear the boats away, and then we would come back again.
Senator SMITH. This firing of rockets continued for some time, did it?
Mr. BRIGHT. I should say probably half an hour.
Senator SMITH. In the meantime were the Morse signals given?
Mr. BRIGHT. I could not say.
Senator SMITH. You could not see them?
Mr. BRIGHT. No, sir.
Senator SMITH. What color did these rockets that were fired show?
Mr. BRIGHT. I did not notice the color; but they burst after they got up in the air.
Senator SMITH. And then what colors were displayed?
Mr. BRIGHT. I did not look to see.
Senator SMITH. You say you went to the boats after that, or from time to time while this firing was going on. Did you assist in loading the boats?
Mr. BRIGHT. After we had finished firing the distress signals there were two boats left. I went and assisted to get out the starboard one; that is, the starboard collapsible boat. Rowe went away to help to get the other one out, and I went away myself.
Senator SMITH. Was the starboard collapsible boat forward?
Mr. BRIGHT. Close to the bridge, on the boat deck.
Senator SMITH. And on the starboard side?
Mr. BRIGHT. Yes.
Senator SMITH. Did you assist in loading that boat?
Mr. BRIGHT. I assisted to get it up.
Senator SMITH. You assisted to get it up in position?
Mr. BRIGHT. Yes.
Senator SMITH. Do you know the number of that boat?
Mr. BRIGHT. I could not say. As soon as the boat was up in place I was sent away to clear another one in place.
Senator SMITH. And you do not know who got into the boats - what members of the crew or passengers?
Mr. BRIGHT. I have only learned since, that Rowe, the man that was working with me, got into that boat. He was in charge of the boat, Rowe was. I was in charge of the other one.
Senator SMITH. You do not know how many people he had in it?
Mr. BRIGHT. Not in his boat; only my own.
Senator SMITH. And you do not know what proportions there were of men and women?
Mr. BRIGHT. I could not say, sir.
Senator SMITH. In this collapsible?
Mr. BRIGHT. No; that one. My own boat I know about.
Senator SMITH. Do you know whether Mr. Ismay was in Mr. Rowe's boat?
Mr. BRIGHT. I have learned so since; I could not say then.
Senator SMITH. That was a collapsible lifeboat forward?
Mr. BRIGHT. There were four collapsibles. That was one of them.
Senator SMITH. I understand. That was a collapsible lifeboat forward, on the starboard side?
Mr. BRIGHT. Close to the bridge; yes.
Senator SMITH. Where did you go after that? You went to this other boat; but where was it?
Mr. BRIGHT. I was on the opposite of the deck to what that was.
Senator SMITH. On the port side?
Mr. BRIGHT. On the port side, right forward, close to the bridge.
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,242
490
213
At the risk of starting a real "war," I must point out that you have to know the time reference of the individuals and/or timepieces. Everyone was not on the same civil time during the sinking. There were three different ship's civil times, New York time, Greenwich Mean Time, and a reference I call "crew bell time." Depending upon which ones are in use, there can be anything from 24 minutes to as much as 1:37 minutes difference between the "times" for a single event.

Let me illustrate with five different stopped personal timepieces: Weikman, March, Norman, Gracie, and Thayer. Of these individuals Norman and March did not survive. Here are the people and the times their pocket watches stopped.

Weikman 1:50
March 1:27
Gracie 2:22
Thayer 2:22
Norman 3:07

Gracie and Thayer were obviously on the same time reference. The colonel was washed over by a wave at about the same moment as Thayer was jumping into the ocean. Both of their watches stopped at 2:22 a.m. using April 14th Civil Time.

Norman's watch is the easiest of the odd stopping times to "dope out." He obviously was confused about the overnight time change of 47 minutes. Instead of retarding his watch, Norman advanced it. This had the net effect of putting it on April 13th Civil Time. Subtracting 47 minutes gives an April 14th Civil Tim for the stopping of Norman's watch at 2:20 a.m.

March and Weikman's timepieces stopped at the same instant, 2:14 a.m. in April 14th Civil Time. With March it is obvious that he correctly retarded his watch the 47 minutes of the setback that night. Weikman was on what I call "crew bell time" some 24 minutes retarded from April 14th Civil time. So, 2:14 in April 14th time was 1:50 on the bell clock, or 1:27 in April 15th time; and all were equivalent of 0512 hrs GMT or 12:12 a.m. in New York.

The bottom line is that any attempt to put events in chronological order is meaningless unless you first establish a baseline time reference and then convert all of the stated times contained in the testimonies to the baseline reference. This can take hours for each person's testimonies, so few researchers choose to go through the work. The results, however, can be surprising.

For example, unless you understand all of the different time relationships, it becomes impossible to understand how lifeboats could be launched at 2 a.m. or later when Stewardess Annie Robinson noted that Titanic sank at 1:40 a.m. on her watch.

As I say, there is no magic in all of this, just lots of frustrating, hard work. Sam and I have been arguing time for two years now and have not come to anything close to a final conclusion that both can accept. The process is much more difficult than it might appear because it involves sometimes dozens of cross reference checks. (Sam can argue as forcefully against my "bell time" as I argue for it, but that is not the point here.)

However, unless the participants go through the process for each lifeboat, any attempt at comparison of launch times is little more than gibberish. Sorry, but you can't come to any conclusions without getting the facts straight.

-- David G. Brown
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
1
106
Dublin
You are entirely right, David. It is the height of folly to attempt to "corrections" as to new times of departure.

This is not to say that the British times are accurate. They are merely indicative. But modern researchers with their "undoubtedlys" in this area are getting their fingers burned, as seen on this thread. Because they are playing with fire.

That is why I speak of "end-time" in relation to what Woolner is talking about. End-time is panic at the last starboard collapsible. Many observers testify to this. It is not actual time-specific. There may be shots.

It is decided by George Behe - and he doesn't give any reason AT ALL - that Woolner is seeing C as the last starboard collapsible.

Lightoller, as I have posted, is looking at this collapsible at the same time. He mentions that Wilde is long gone - but Wilde launched C, as its occupants all say. Therefore C is long gone. Therefore this last starboard collapsible is not C.

I have posted a mountain of contra-indications for the choice of C as the boat Woolner is looking at. One of the people thus painted into a corner appears to have walked away with sticky stuff on the soles of his feet, but absolutely no-one has offered a reason why Woolner should be seeing C instead of the logical A.

It is George Behe who created this mad construct of Ismay and his boat, C, being around at the end-time. Bill W says he agrees with that "logic" even though it is contradicted by dozens of observers.

I'm going to give another example of the sheer unlikelihood of the 2am theory. I believe I can go on indefinitely, but if the point is made, I'll stop.

The knock-on effects of the 2am theory for C are bizarre. They ripple all the way backwards, as well as forwards and sideways.

Make this Assumption No. 8 - that George Symons is wrong, as well as "orderly" Bright, posted by Teri:

AB George Symons says (11453) he went to No 1 boat. George Behe, as revised and approved by Bill W, leave this time to stand as given - ie, 1.10am.

Symons said he jumped in "because there
were no passengers around the deck at that time," adding immiediately afterwards: "Other members of the crew were assisting in getting the cover off of the surf boat lying under the emergency boat [that is, Collapsible C) - she had been in her place, if she was swung in."

Symons goes on:

11460 Now why did he order the boat to be lowered away while it was not full? – Because, I suppose, he had looked around the deck for other people, as well as I did myself, and there was not another passenger in sight, only just the remainder of the crew getting the surf boat ready. (Collapsible C!)

There they are, uncovering Collapsible C, at the time Boat 1 goes away. Which is said to be 1.10am.

No mention of anyone putting their watches back twenty minutes here, eh? If they did, it would be ten minutes to twelve.

So they uncover it at 1.10am, but they don’t launch it until 2am... nearly an hour later ...strange ...why the delay with C, lads?

Sheer folly!
 

Similar threads