Plucked from the Sea Survivors Claims Reconsidered


Dec 2, 2000
1,513
1
168
Hmmmmm. this was very good and would be an excellent resource, except for one thing. The writer anticipates that the reader will be an historian with very specific knowledge about poeple from the Titanic. This may be a mistake because most people doing research would at least like a reference provide as to where I can find all that obviously known knowledge that is assumed that I know and don't.

I guess I would like to see the "known" stuff as well. As it is, thi s list is somewhat like having an Encyclopedia with all the pre-60's stuff deleted because it is assumed that one already knows this stuff.

Unless this article is for another purpose.

I also thought that there were a lot of suppositions contained throughout the document.
Great Research. Maureen.
 

Philip Hind

Staff member
Member
Sep 1, 1996
1,752
17
168
England
Thanks for the message Maureen, perhaps I should clarify something. The article was not originally (and still isn't) an article as such. It was collated quite a while ago and recently placed in the ET Research section for convenience and increased visibility.

It is something of a work in progress, Peter wrote the first verison and Tad made some additions. I hoped to do a similar thing with the lifeboat lists which are equally debatable but that is a much bigger task.

[hr]
Quote:

I also thought that there were a lot of suppositions contained throughout the document.
[hr]​
It would be very helpful if you could spell out in more detail some of your reservations.

Phil
 
Dec 2, 2000
1,513
1
168
Dear Phil,
Thanks, I will re-read the article and write down the specific points, I did not do that the first go round. And will get back to you ASAP.

Also, if this is a part of a work in progress that may be a part of my problem and the fact that I am so new at all of this too.
Maureen.
PS Welcome back, Cook was very good, but don't tell him that I leaked that information to you.
happy.gif
 
Dec 2, 2000
1,513
1
168
Okay Phil, here goes.

The listing is very educational and very resourceful except in a few spots.

This document appears to me to be some sort of reference listing of sorts and the title of the listing is "Plucked from the Sea? Survivors Calims Reconsidered."
1) Why is the response "no comment necessary" an acceptable response to the the statement that I am reconsidering your claim on the part of the author? If I were an insurance adjuster, would it be enough to say that no comment is necesary for people reading the chart in years ot come? I would place something like "Collapsible B. Claim verified." But even better yet, that is not totally true, Colonel Gracie managed to get to Collapsible B as did others from the water. But that little statement "Collapsible B" does not say that. Yet in other areas the use of "swam to ..." is used to indicate presence in the water.

Therefore for clarity, I should think that it should read:
Gracie, Colonel Archibald IV "Managed to get to Collapsible B. Claim verified."

That information tells me first that he was in the water. He managed to do it himself. It tells which lifeboat. and it tells me that the claim is valid.

The example, under first class passengers the authors list: "Gracie, Colonel Archibald IV Collapsible B. No comment necessary."

The same entry is provided for Mr John Thayer and Mr Richard Williams under the first class listing.

If I am an elementary school kid doing a project on life boats for the Titanic...all the details justifying why the person is telling the truth about being in the water should be there,so why is there nothing to justify why what Gracie said was true? Or Thayer or Williams? Maybe not the actual words but perhaps for those who do not know, place a reference to his book.

Also, my reference to suppositions hasd to do with entires for Duquemin, Mr Joseph - "Said he was picked up by Collapsible D However he was almost ceratinly in it when it was lowered away."

Okay, you've shared that information with me, now why do you "almost certainly" Mr Duquenin's story but accept anothers story as true? This is also true for Madsen and Tornquist. Why?

It is not me that is questioning whether or not the stuff presented here is factual or not, I am not saying that, but all I am saying is how can you justify it...what were the facts upon which the authors base their "opinion" that the person is not being truthful.

Also, I believe that the figures are off a bit. Boat "4" with 8, Boat "14" with 3-4, Boat "A" with 11-14 and two crew member witnesses that state 20, Boat "B" with from 25-35 and Boat "D" with 1. That my friend with my mathematics comes to between 48 as a low figure to 68 as a high figure, not 44-48.

Sidney Daniels had a case of the "quinsy" what is that and of what significance is it to the lifeboat water thing.

The bottom part of the "article" is very informative. And the information contained inthe lists as a whole is very helpful and quite useful. I just wish it was all there.

For ignorant folks like me who don't know anything about any of this.

But I want to say that I believe that I was quick to write a hard post and I want to say that the piece required a lot of hard work and I appreciate the work that thsese two individuals did on this. Thanks so much for the posting and your infinte patience with someone so new to be able to write and to question without thunderbolts coming from the sky.....&@*&(&!!!

Sorry...but communciations has been lost with this user.......
happy.gif
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
1
86
Dear Maureen,
Hello, how are you? Good I hope. It is nice to meet you. Thank you for your comments on the article.

You wrote:
"But I want to say that I believe that I was quick to write a hard post and I want to say that the piece required a lot of hard work and I appreciate the work that thsese two individuals did on this. Thanks so much for the posting and your infinte patience with someone so new to be able to write and to question without thunderbolts coming from the sky.....&@*&(&!!!"

No need to worry, I do not think that your post came across as hard at all. I certainly love to hear creative criticism regarding any project that I have taken part in, or contributed to. In this case, I cannot take any credit for the format or layout of the article, that was all Peter's work. All I did was add additonal information to the article regarding several passengers and the evidence supporting or refuting their claims.

You wrote:
"Sidney Daniels had a case of the "quinsy" what is that and of what significance is it to the lifeboat water thing."

In regards to Steward Sidney Daniels, quinsy is an infection which causes inflamation of the tonsils, often accompanied by a fever and the presence of pus. Quinsy can be brought on by exposure to the elements. Sidney Daniels is known to have been in the hospital following the arrival in New York, and press articles say that he was suffering from exposure. This, combined with his subsequent throat infection seems to lend credibility to his claims regarding being in the water and reaching Collapsible B. The only reason some researchers have doubted his claims is because of how long after the disaster Daniels gave his account. Some suggest that so much time had gone by before he gave a detailed account of his survival, that he could have picked up details from others accounts and integrated them into his own story for dramatic effect. Given the evidence though, it certainly seems that he was being truthful. I hope this helps.
Best regards,
Tad Fitch
 
Dec 2, 2000
1,513
1
168
Dear Tad Fitch,
Thansk you so much for your response and the reassurance that lightening bolts would not be forthcoming. And thank you for the information on quinsy. Had no idea in the world what that was.

That is no doubt one of those I use English as a second language issues (Amercian being my first language) he he.

Anyway...enjoyed "meeting" you here. Look forward to more from you.
Maureen.