Order of lifeboat launching


RECAP after 100 posts - Ismay left in Collapsible C. The British Inquiry said this happened at 1.40am.

Paul Lee and Bill Wormstedt suggest here that Collapsible C actually left at 2am - and that Ismay, Weikman, Brown, Pearcey and Rowe were therefore lying about Collapsible C's departure being orderly, without passengers desperately trying to get in when Ismay left.

Yet there is no specific evidentiary basis for believing that Collapsible C left at 2am.

Bill Wormstedt in 1999 published something called Revised Launch Times with his friend George Behe, which suddenly claimed Collapsible C left at 2am.

This is the only reason Bill now gives:

Rowe's statement that the ship sank 20 minutes before the ship sank - pointing more to 2:00, instead of 11:40.

Don't mind the 11.40 time at the end, there. That is another of Bill's mistakes. He means 1.40am, the time for C's departure given by the British Inquiry, and not the time of iceberg impact.

In the next post we shall examine the basis for George and Bill's changing of the British Inquiry time of 1.40am (cited because a person actually in Boat C gave this time on departure).

We shall see how strong or flimsy is Bill's basis for his 2am assertion.
 
Dear old Bill Wormstedt wrote:

We also have Rowe's statement that the ship sank 20 minutes before the ship sank - pointing more to 2:00, instead of 11:40.

Bill doesn’t actually mean that the ship “sank before it sank.”

He means that Rowe's boat — Collapsible C - departed 20 minutes before the ship sank, although his writing, as we can see, is confused.

Yet that's true:

Senator Burton: She must have sunk soon after you left?
Rowe: Twenty minutes, I believe.

Oh, but, jeepers, Bill - you didn't mention this other part of Rowe's US testimony:

Burton: How far from the ship were you when she went down?
Rowe: About three-quarters of a mile, sir.

How is this consistent with YOUR 2am departure time for his boat, Bill?

Did you overlook it, or did you just decide to ignore the discrepancy?

And Rowe also says in his US evidence:

Rowe: Yes, sir. When we left the ship the fore well-deck was awash; that is, when we pushed off from the ship. It was 1.25 when I left the bridge to get into the boat. [Bill! See this bit?] When the boat was in the water the well deck was submerged. It took us a good five minutes to lower the boat on account of this rubbing going down.

1.25 plus 5 mins = 1.30am. Ten minutes for loading? Pearcey repeatedly heard the time given on deparature as 1.40am. Rowe is consistent with Pearcey’s time.

They are consistent with each other.
But how are they consistent with YOUR 2am departure time, Bill?

How is Rowe consistent with a person’s “putting back his watch” twenty minutes, as you suggest must have happened?

Rowe repeats in his British testimony -

(Br. 17688) that when he put off in C, the fore well-deck [ie, C deck level] was under water, but "the forecastle head [B deck] was not submerged."

How is this consistent with YOUR 2am departure time for Rowe’s boat, Bill?
Rowe, at least, was in it…

At 2am the sea was licking its lips and about to wreak havoc. It was not dawdling about on C deck. Woolner says the water was at his feet on A deck at the time. He jumped into D there, because “if we had waited a minute longer we should have been boxed in against the ceiling.”

Did you also overlook or ignore this next slice of his evidence, Bill, again from 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."
(1.25am!)
"I went to the boat. Women and children were being passed in. I assisted six, three woman and three children. The order was then given to lower the boat. The chief officer wanted to know if there were more women and children. There were none in the vicinity. Two gentlemen passengers got in; the boat was then lowered."

How is this consistent with YOUR 2am departure time, Bill?

You see, you are the one saying 2am. How do you explain these contra-indications in the evidence of a witness that you yourself put forward as worthy of credence?

I’m curious.
 

Paul Lee

Member
But surely, the people who came to Ismay's defence were in no position to contradict his statement about the lack of people on the boat deck as boat C was lowered. If there was a rush around the boat, then White Star Line employees would hardly have said that the chairman was in the middle of it, and that he somehow managed to get aboard the boat? Also, Carter would be in the same situation- how did he get aboard with so many others around?

By the way, heres what Thayer wrote to Milton Long's father on 23/4/12

"..we went to the starboard side of the boat deck.
There was an awful crowd around the last boat
of the forward part of the starboard side, pushing
and shoving wildly....we thought it would never
reach the water right side up, but it did."

Reagrding Woolner seeing boat A rather than boat C, when I first read the arguments, I was impressed.

But then I went back to Gracie's book.

It would take too long to quote verbatim what he said, but this is a summary:
boat A is hoisted down from the roof of the officer's quarters. The boat seems to have spent a while on the boat deck, and Gracie wonders whether this is due to the crew wanting to launch boats A and B at the same time.

At this point, 15 minutes after the launching of boat D, water starts to gurgle up the forward staircase on the starboard boat deck. By this point, A deck is flooded, and boat D has gone, although admittedly, Gracie does not seem to have seen this happen.

Gracie does not mention the mad panic that Woolner saw, although he does say that there were many people around wanting to board the boat. Gracie and Clinch Smith then head aft to met by the mass of humanity etc.

When Woolner headed to A deck, it was dry. when boat A was being readied, it must have been at least partially awash.
 
>Bill doesn’t actually mean that the ship “sank before it sank.”<

Bad typing on my part, due to trying to rush out of here for the holidays.

Back to Woolner: Obviously you aren't reading his testimony close enough, Mr. Molony, as Woolner*corrected* Senator Smith about which collapsible he was talking about. In the center of page 886 of the US hearings, Woolner is very specific about seeing "two flashes of a pistol" and Smith asks if it was at the first collapsible on the port. Woolner replies "on the starboard side".

>It is "modern researchers" who decided they knew better than Albert Pearcey and moved the departure for Collapsible C to close to the end-time.<

So, we have Rowe who gives us a leave time of 20 minutes before the ship sank, and Ismay himself gives us an even shorter time of 10 minutes. Though Ismay's estimate is rough, it is far closer to a 2:00 launch time than to an 1:40 launch time.

I am not sure which '1999' article I wrote that you are refering to. Regardless, my (and George Behe's and Tad Fitch's) current views on the subject were published in the THS Commutator in 2001. In that article we fully address the entire issue of Rowe's time keeping. See that article for details . George himself published an article with the 2:00 launch time as early as 1991.

And there is the issue of William Carter, another surivior in Collapsible C. He claimed to put his family into Lifeboat #4, *before* he left in C. If #4 left at 1:55, as stated in the British Inquiry, how could he leave at 1:40? Answer - because C did *not* leave at 1:40, it left after #4, closer to a 2:00 time frame.

You make quite an issue of Frankie Goldsmith's conviction that he left in D, not C. However, these are the memories of a mere boy writing years after the disaster. Mrs. Goldsmith, his mother, on the other hand, was an adult in 1912 and recounted her story within days of the disaster. Mrs. Goldsmith said that the four Chinese stowaways were in her lifeboat and that they refused to get out when the officer fired his gun. Needless to say, the four Chinese stowaways were in Collapsible C along with Ismay. As an aside, Mrs. Goldsmith also refers to the gunfire at C.


Paul: Thanks for mentioning Gracie's account, written in the few months after the disaster before Gracie died. I was going to mention it myself, but you beat me to it!
 
Paul,

Thanks for the Thayer quote:


"..we went to the starboard side of the boat deck. There was an awful crowd around the last boat of the forward part of the starboard side, pushing and shoving wildly....we thought it would never reach the water right side up, but it did."

That's consistent with Collapsible A.
It is not consistent with the testimony as to C.

Brown talks of the scrum, wild shoving. So does Thayer and Woolner. At 'A'. People can be washed out of 'A,' and the boat is flung off - we know it lands right side up because Rhoda Abbott, Edvard and Gerda Lindell are in it, etc.

It's found floating right side up.

But there is nothing to say that the wild scrum is around Collapsible C. A wash-out and a washaway for Collapsible A is no surprise.

The wash-out (and Snow's deposition) supports the people who talk about a starboard forward boat being devastated by a wave, or capsizing. It can turn right side up thereafter. I'm not surprised, because it was found that way.

Think about this - the five crew who gave evidence about Collapsible C and who supported Ismay's contention about nobody around when it left - do not include men beholden to the White Star Line.

Ismay is the very first witness of any called. Imagine there was a wild panic and a scrum. First of all, is Ismay tough enough to prosper?
And if he is somehow given preferential treatment, why would a pantryman like Pearcey - a bottlewasher basically (*let's not analyse what a pantryman does!), who also survives *in the scrum* by fighting tooth and nail, might and main, back up Ismay?
He can get any other menial job any time, but his life was arguably jeopardised to save the MD...
What does he owe to Ismay if Ismay is now brazenly lying under oath about a nice orderly procession at 2am with nobody around. [Two am, for God's sake! Who's going to believe that!!]}

That just does not make sense, and NOBODY from Collapsible C contradicted Ismay. Not on the lack of people, not on the orderliness, not on the time of departure.

Gracie (a very unreliable witness anyway - let's not get into that either, I have parties to go to!) is just not relevant to the departure of Collapsible C.

Paul, I am going to debrief Woolner for you in probably the next post. Don't forget that Woolner does not know what Collapsible he is looking at, and you can't just decide that it is C.
You have to test that theory. I'll test it for you - then you can give me reasons why it COULD be Collapsible C. Sound fair?

But you did say something interesting:

If there was a rush around the boat, then White Star Line employees would hardly have said that the chairman was in the middle of it, and that he somehow managed to get aboard the boat? Also, Carter would be in the same situation- how did he get aboard with so many others around?

Now, Paul, let's imagine that the above scenario is the correct one. Let's assume thereafter that you are Ismay in these circumstances.
What are you going to testify when you are the very first witness called?

You will want to testify without fear of contradiction, won't you? You don't want to antagonise anyone - the Hearst papers have you in enough trouble, right?
You are going to say, quoting your able counsel Paul Lee: "The was a rush around the boat, Senator. I was trying to keep order. I was in the middle of it, and I somehow managed to get aboard the boat. I had been helping women in, and then the officers were forced to draw revolvers."

He is offering practically no side to his accusers in that case.
In some sense it is worse that he wasn't pushed or shoved in by an officer firing a gun, but calmly stepped in of his own volition earlier in the night. That conscience issue won't go away.

But I am struck by Ismay's uncompromising clarity in his opening evidence. It is very stark. He obviously has no fear of contradiction - and he is not contradicted.

It is not just boat C occupants who back him up, by the way, and not just those left behind like Weikman and Brown who would have added reason to feel aggrieved.

There is a whole network of interdependency which shows that a 2am departure time for Collapsible C (with attendant unpleasantness) simply cannot stand.
The persons in 1912 who are providing these linkages are sometimes doing so unconsciously, so cannot be attempting to either do Ismay a favour or do him a disservice.

The testing of Woolner next.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
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.
 
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.
 
>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!
 
Teri:

Our timeline has #2 and #4 leaving *before* Collapsible C. For details, see

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."
 
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 í¯Â¿Â½ not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.
Gave accounts in the NYT and Washington Times of shots fired.

2)Joseph Abraham í¯Â¿Â½ 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 í¯Â¿Â½ 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 í¯Â¿Â½ not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given.

15)Joseph Abraham í¯Â¿Â½ 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 í¯Â¿Â½ 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 í¯Â¿Â½ 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.

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 í¯Â¿Â½ British Enquiry.

36)Albert Weikman - not found in either Enquiry. No testimony given, but affidavit given, and was printed in í¯Â¿Â½The Ismay Line.í¯Â¿Â½

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.
 
Top