Possible method to delay sinking

Status
Not open for further replies.
15357. Did you see it yourself? - I was not too sure of seeing it. I had just come out of the light, and my eyes were not accustomed to the darkness.

Whether his eyes were accustomed to the darkness or not, Boxhall, on the starboard bridge wing of the ship, would have to be totally blind and in a total stupor not to see or be aware of an iceberg 100 feet high passing down the starboard side while the ship was steaming ahead with the rudder hard-a-port.

Collins
 
Hi, Sam and Michael!

>>15357. Did you see it yourself? - I was not too sure of seeing it. I had just come out of the light, and my eyes were not accustomed to the darkness.

>>The short version is that Boxhall's night vision was trashed by the light he was exposed to inside the ship.

I'm not sure what light you both are referring to. Yes, he was in his cabin (having a cup of tea, or not), which probably had a bare bulb. But he was in darkness from the time he went out on deck till he got to the bridge. I don't think the lighting of the bridge was overly brilliant. On the bridge, he had time enough to hear the exchange between Smith and Murdoch before they all three trooped out onto the bridge wing, again in relative darkness. The entire thing took only moments, but from my own experience, my night vision begins to kick in in a couple of seconds - not minutes. I'd like to give Boxhall the benefit of the doubt on this, but I'm just a wee bit suspicious of lack of night vision being used as a one-size-fits-all excuse.

Roy
 
Hey Roy, those were Boxhall's own words concerning his night vision, not mine. He said he just came out of the officer's quarters and that should tell you what light he was referring to. Plain and simple, Boxhall was not sure what he saw. Again in his own words from the American Inquiry:
"I was not very sure of seeing it. It seemed to me to be just a small black mass not rising very high out of the water, just a little on the starboard quarter...I am not sure of seeing it; that is what I say, I would not swear to seeing it..."

What more do you want?

But if Boxhall wasn't sure of what he saw, there were quite a few others who were sure of what they saw: Olliver, Rowe, Fleet, Lee, Scarrott, Shiers, and a few more. What I do find interesting about Boxhall's testimony is not just what he did say, but what he didn't say. We know he talks about hearing the hard-starboard order and reversal of engines, yet he says nothing of a hard-aport order being given, only Murdoch's explanation to Smith of an intent to port around. Yet he said he thought he saw the mass on the starboard quarter. Can't do that if the ship was in a turn to port.
 
Sam:

We know he talks about hearing the hard-starboard order and reversal of engines, yet he says nothing of a hard-aport order being given,

What in the world would be the purpose of a hard-aport order being given after the hard-starboard order and reversal of engines?

only Murdoch's explanation to Smith of an intent to port around

Murdock negated his intention to port around when he stopped and/or reversed the engines.

Yet he said he thought he saw the mass on the starboard quarter. Can't do that if the ship was in a turn to port.

Of course he could see the mass on the starboard quarter while turning to port when the ship was transiting pack ice.

Collins
 
Under your scenario Capt. Collins why would Murdoch even have an intention to do a port around in the first place? What would there be to port around? And of course we must ignore Boxhall, Hichens, and Olliver when they all said that they heard Murdoch's response to Smith's question regarding what they struck.

Mr. BOXHALL. He said we had struck an iceberg.

Mr. HICHENS. The skipper came rushing out of his room - Capt. Smith - and asked, "What is that?" Mr. Murdoch said, "An iceberg."

Mr. OLLIVER. When he first came on the bridge he asked the first officer what was the matter, and Mr. Murdoch reported, sir, that we had struck an iceberg...
 
Hi, Sam!

>>those were Boxhall's own words concerning his night vision, not mine. . . . What more do you want?

Oh yes, I'm familiar with what he had to say about it. My question, though, is whether sufficient time had passed by the time the trio went out onto the bridge wing that Boxhall might (might) have seen one of Michael's "tag alongs," rather than the Big 'Un itself. That's why I questioned the night vision thing. It's all conjecture, Sam, because Boxhall had real doubts and the other two didn't get a chance to put their impressions into the record. I know Boxhall has been timed going to the bridge. I wonder if he's also been timed against the speed of the ship - roughly, of course - after he got to the bridge.

I tend to believe Olliver and Scarrott over Hichens and Boxhall simply because there was less opportunity, or the need for, collusion. I'm mindful that Boxhall was covered by the IMM's Rules and Regs relating to their obligations to the WSL during legal proceedings - that parts of Boxhall's story changed significantly over the following days and weeks. And I know that Hichens' testimony is under a cloud of possible WSL bribery. Once that sort of thing surfaces, it's difficult reading their testimony at face value.

Roy
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Liam:

You may be referring to the theory that, if flooding had been allowed to progress through the ship by opening the watertight doors, then Titanic may have been able to remain afloat longer.

If so, then this thread is one that discusses that question.
 
>>didnt they say if you didnt close the water tight door she would be able to float to land<<

Nope. Nobody ever said that. What was asserted at one time was that if the watertight doors had been left open, the ship would have floated more evenly and lasted longer. This bizzarr conclusion was finally put to rest when tank tests were done with engineers models which demonstrated that exactly the opposite would have happened. Lights would have been lost at around 12:40, leaving the ship in darkness and free surface action would have destabilized the ship to the point where she would have rolled over half an hour earlier then she actually did.

Go to http://home.flash.net/~rfm/WHYWHAT/whywhat.html for a discussion of "What If" scenerios and the problems with them.
 
And of course we must ignore Boxhall, Hichens, and Olliver when they all said that they heard Murdoch's response to Smith's question regarding what they struck.

Of course not! There is no doubt that Murdoch believed he had hit an iceberg, and so responded to Captain Smith. He was told by the lookout "Iceberg Right Ahead", and there is every reason to believe, if he were standing in the starboard bridge wing, that he saw the illusory iceberg when the ice came under the influence of the ship's light. But, if he had been experienced in ice navigation he would have immediately known, especially at the time of impact, that it could not possibly have been a real iceberg. Furthermore, if he had been an experienced shiphandler he would have known that the ONLY way to port around would be to keep all engnes AHEAD while shifting the rudder to hard-a-starboard (Hard-a-Port Helm). After commencing a turn with hard-a-port rudder, Reversing the engines negated all chance of making his port around.

Collins
 

Paul Lee

Member
Capt.Haisman,
Good post above. It must be that Fleet was lying. Obviously he was protecting the White Star Line, which had collapsed decades ago, by perpetuating the iceberg theory. What loyalty!

Or it could be that
bull**** theory + "Titanic" on the title of a book = $$$$ in the eyes of the author.

The only thing illusory is the make believe kindergarten theory we are being exposed to.
 
With all due respect to all interested parties, please remember that personal attacks are not permitted here and the Captain Collins enjoys the same protection of the rules as anyone else. Th points/claims are fair game for attack, but the person making them is not.
 
>>dont you think if she did roll over over they would of been able to rise her<<

Why would any of us think that?

It's quite common for ships to roll over as they sink but if they go down in deep enough water, they also tend to right themselves as they go down. The question of whether or not a ship can be raised depends on, among other factors:

a) whether or not the wreck lies in water that's shallow enough, (Titanic does not)

b) How large the wreck is. (The Titanic is too big)

c) how intact it is (Titanic's wreck is scattered over several square miles of the bottom) and.

d) whether or not there's a good reason to remove the wreck. (With Titanic, there really isn't.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top