Saving more lives

Scott Mills

Member
Jul 10, 2008
608
55
98
42
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
In the engine room , the sequence of events were ; Stop..close all dampers in all stoke holds. Then impact, followed seconds later by catastrophic flooding of boiler room 6.
Not to revisit an old argument, Jim, but Beauchamp, who was also in boiler room six tells a totally different story (which is why testimonial evidence is tricky.)

As I read Beauchamp's testimony he reports a thunderous crash, then the all stop order, then 5 minutes later the closing of the WTDs and finally flooding, which came mostly from beneath the floor.

Also, I can think of at least two people who were in the engine room after the impact who lived. They may not have been stationed there, but they were there. And Dillion was only in the engine room himself very briefly after the collision.

"3719. You just heard it ring. Then a few seconds after that you felt a slight shock?
- Yes.

3720. Was anything done to the engines? Did they stop or did they go on?
- They stopped.

3721. Was that immediately after you felt the shock or some little time after?
- About a minute and a half.

3722. Did they continue stopped or did they go on again after that?
- They went slow astern.

3723. How long were they stopped for before they began to go slow astern?
- About half a minute.

3724. For how long did they go slow astern?
- About two minutes.

3725. Two or three did you say?
- Two minutes.

3726. And then did they stop again?
- Yes.

3727. And did they go on again after that?
- They went ahead again.

3728. For how long?
- For about two minutes.

3729. Then did they stop the boat after that?
- Yes."
Your quoting of Dillion's testimony is certainly correct, however, reading further down in hist testimony, he also testifies to being nearly immediately sent with orders to open watertight doors. So the same critique applies--how exactly would he have perfect knowledge of the telegraph orders.

Furthermore, Dillion testifies to the following (which occurred after he assisted opening the doors)

3755. Was an order given you with regard to the fires shortly after that?
- Yes.

3756. What order?
- "Keep steam up."

3757. How long was steam kept up? Can you say?
- I could not tell you how long it was kept up, but that was the order - "Keep steam up."
So Dillion says the orders passed to the stokeholds--after he's left the engine room--are "keep the steam up." And this came after the order to "draw the fires."

Incidentally, how would he know about the draw the fire orders at all, since he was in the engine room previously!

In any event, the relevant question is:

If Dillion is correct, and the engines were stopped for good when he says, what possible reason would there be to pass the orders "keep the steam up," which countermanded the original orders to draw the fires, other than actually steaming?

My understanding from lurking on this board was that Titanic did not actually need steam to run the electrical or the pumping system. So if this is true, at the very least you have to admit that asking for more steam after the Titanic has supposedly stopped for good seems kind of strange.

Mr Harder, a passenger, told the US Inquiry that they were getting the boats ready at midnight. This confirms Lightollers story.
Now why on earth would they be getting boats ready while getting underway again?
A couple of things here, as we've pointed out in the "grain of salt" thread, you really need to question witness recollection of time. Particularly when they are giving you exact times.

Its much easier to judge time when people give you descriptions of what they are doing as time elapses. Incidentally, this is why I trust Beasley so much. Because instead of really giving us exact times, he tells us what he did, who he talked to, and what they talked about. That and it was written immediately after the wreck and not, say 25 years later.

So in this case, having not actually read his testimony, I wonder how certain Martin can be of the time. I also wonder what he means by, "getting ready." As Tad points out in Sam's latest anthology, the initial order to uncover the boats was precautionary. So if Martin is just talking about uncovering the boats, then I conceded 12:05 to be a perfect possible time. You do not, however, need to be stopped to merely uncover and provision the boats, do you?

And if 12:00 is an accurate time and Smith is uncovering the boats because he has concrete plans to lower them, then why does it take 25 (at the earliest possible time of 12:25) minutes for the actually loading process to begin?

I think Tad and David are on to something here. The officers did not know Titanic was fatally damaged possibly until the time the first boats get away. That makes it 45 minutes. During that time there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to the fact that in the first 20 or so minutes after the collision, it appeared as though the pumps were staying ahead of the flooding in key places.

If this is true, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that Smith, possibly under the influence of Ismay, may have resumed steaming--slowly--most likely making for the closet port that could handle Titanic. In this case Halifax.

And as I've pointed out earlier there is a good deal of evidence that the ship did in fact resume making way--I say 10 minutes and you say 2.

In the above scenario, as David pointed out in his 2001 book, it might have been the case that Titanic was not fatally damaged, or could have floated much longer, but making way exacerbated the flooding/damage that suddenly the pumps were NOT keeping up with the flooding. Alternatively, the ship could have been doomed from the first, but it just wasn't realized until some point (around 12:20) after Titanic resumed her forward progress.

Incidentally, I just read part of David's 2001 book "Last Log of Titanic" a couple of weeks ago. When I read it, I was actually stunned how closely his theory (at the time) matched what Lightoller's granddaughter has recently claimed. Not that this proves anything, but it sure did give me goose bumps.

So here we have a picture of a ship listing because she is catastrophically flooded in 5 compartments (Smith knew about this before midnight) yet we are being asked to believe she got underway again for 10 minutes? Really?
Did he? Reading Tad's portion of Sam's latest anthology sure made it seem, by using a plethora of eye witness statements, that he didn't. In fact, at one point--around midnight--Andrews is reported to have said to Smith something along the lines of "the first three are full," and this occurred below deck while Andrews and Smith were surveying the damage.

While not definitive, "the first 3," doesn't sound to me a whole lot like Smith knew about the extensive damage to all of the compartments. At least not the extent. It has been argued that damage in certain places was actually controlled, or reported to be controlled, by pumping. So if Smith knew about damage to 5 compartments, but thought that the damage in 2 of them was manageable (or even 1) he would still be operating on the assumption that Titanic would not founder.
 
Feb 17, 2014
1
0
11
Several questions concerning the sinking of The Ship

Ok so for my entire life, at least for as long as I can remember, I have loved and been obsessed with the Titanic. The story, the people, the mystique, the legend, and of course the multiple motion pictures about the topic. I was recently reading someplace (I can't quite remember where or who) that even if the Titanic had enough lifeboats, due to the disorganization of the crew and lack of information among the crew, they never would have had enough time to actually save every soul aboard. Now this is something I have never really thought about and was just curious about some of the others Titanic enthusiasts opinion on this. Given how fast the ship was sinking once it really started going and again the disorganization of the crew this makes quite a lot of sense to me.. What do you guys think? Also, as an afterthought, had the lifeboats one back sooner, would they have been as swamped as the people believed?
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,273
566
183
Germany
Ok so for my entire life, at least for as long as I can remember, I have loved and been obsessed with the Titanic. The story, the people, the mystique, the legend, and of course the multiple motion pictures about the topic. I was recently reading someplace (I can't quite remember where or who) that even if the Titanic had enough lifeboats, due to the disorganization of the crew and lack of information among the crew, they never would have had enough time to actually save every soul aboard.Now this is something I have never really thought about and was just curious about some of the others Titanic enthusiasts opinion on this. Given how fast the ship was sinking once it really started going and again the disorganization of the crew this makes quite a lot of sense to me.. What do you guys think? Also, as an afterthought, had the lifeboats one back sooner, would they have been as swamped as the people believed?
It was more the lack of crew and also the lack of time to have saved everyone and to launch more boats. [Most of the crew members knew their boat station and went directly to it as long as no Officer called them to another boat.]

Most likely the boats would have swamped if they had gone close to a large group of swimmers who then all try to get on board. On the overturned collapsible B the people on board had to push others away and even use wood or an oar to hit them. Boat No. 4 took about 7 or 8 swimmers but they were far enough from a large crowed of swimmers and close enough for some to reach the boat.
 
Mar 4, 2011
48
0
36
given the lack of alarm, the unwillingness of people to leave, the untrained crew, and the fact the ship sank relatively quickly, no. Would have made no difference what so ever.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,273
566
183
Germany
given the lack of alarm,
Would be very difficult as there was no alarm system on board those ships.

the untrained crew,
Which is mainly a myth. The crew were trained. The problem was mainly that some came from different ship like Oceanic. However on every ship there was a drill on every voyage.

and the fact the ship sank relatively quickly,
Actually she did sunk "slow". However not enough time to launch all boats.

the unwillingness of people to leave
Quite right! One of the reason why some of the starboard boats left half full and as 5th Officer Lowe said, the loading took a lot of time as people were not willing to go and in several cases also start to discuss with the crew.
 
Jan 27, 2011
95
2
38
36
Cincinnati, Ohio
given the lack of alarm, the unwillingness of people to leave, the untrained crew, and the fact the ship sank relatively quickly, no. Would have made no difference what so ever.

Where is all this coming from? Michael, I have mentioned this to you through several posts here on different topics. You really need to check the information you are reading, none of this is true!
 

John Jaeger

Member
Sep 11, 2015
90
3
16
Now, suppose there had been one thoughtful officer on board, intent on saving as many passengers and crew as possible, as is every crewman's greatest responsibility.

If he had ordered:

1. The crew to fill every lifeboat to capacity, confiscating all life jackets from women and children before they debarked. In addition to the rated capacity, ten additional women and children were then loaded into each successive lifeboat launched. Then, after all the children and women were safely away,

2. Men to be loaded in lifeboats, likewise with ten additional passengers in each lifeboat over its rated capacity. There was more than ample freeboard for such an overload, and the sea was calm. These two steps alone would have saved an additional 540 people.

3. Every able-bodied man on board to bring up on deck all wooden deck chairs, tables, and any furniture suitable for constructing as many wooden rafts as possible.

4. Every crewman to bring up on deck all hammers, saws, axes, wires, ropes, cables, straps, screws and nails suitable to fashion rafts with life jackets securely tied underneath them for buoyancy. Fabricated wooden rafts would be stiffened with longer pieces of wood or lightweight metal rods and a minimum of two paddles fabricated per raft of ten by ten feet. Simple boards would also work for paddles. All men aboard rafts to remain seated at all times, for stability.

5. Two officers and eight able-bodied men to take the first raft fabricated and carry hand tools to the iceberg and chip steps out and insert poles with hand ropes so that passengers and crew could climb off rafts, especially if there was an insufficient number of rafts constructed. (Approximately 100 would be needed.)

Then that one wise senior officer would have saved virtually all 1,517 who perished would have survived in the calm waters, until the Carpathia arrived just four hours later.

I estimate that the improbable series of events leading to the loss of Titanic has a compound probability of 1 in 250 trillion trillion. Even if you were to use your own estimates and adjust them upward substantially upward, I doubt that you could achieve anything more likely than 1 chance in 10,000,000,000.

http://TitanicProbabilities.blogspot.com
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,379
751
273
Chicago, IL, USA
You obviously have never been in a traumatic situation such as being on a sinking vessel in the dead of night. And by the way, if you are intent on assigning probabilities to specific events in a historic timeline, you need to justify your choices, not assign random values as you did on your blog. You also need to check some the facts you stated which have long been dispelled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajmal Dar

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
486
112
53
38
Tacoma, WA
Wow! That would have took MANY 'thoughtful officers' to coordinate all that. Not only are we assuming that such feats could be pulled off, but we are also assuming there was enough man power to do all these things; launch the boats, man the boats, oversee all stated activities, coordinate passengers and crew, etc., etc. Even if there was enough man power, trying to build life rafts on a crowded deck? Survivalists have a hard time agreeing on how to build rafts when there are just two of them, plenty of room, and plenty of time. This would seem like a waste of human resource, when the best probability would be to fill the boats already at hand, not to hopefully construct sea worthy life rafts in a little under 2 hrs (when the evacuation actually began).
Then this involves passenger cooperation. Panic and confused ones at that. Plus language barriers. Plus, icebergs are HIGHLY unstable. Adding weight could cause it to capsize. Overall, these probabilities, as good as they may sound on paper, but that's all unfortunately.
 
Nov 13, 2014
336
18
48
Belgium
Yeah, and there WERE some survivalists who built rafts from deck chairs, doors, and anything else they could find. Chief Baker Joughin threw 50 deck chairs overboard to be used as life rafts, and there is little doubt many of them were used by swimmers. But did it help in saving lives? No. Not at all. The water was 30°F, nobody lasts in there for over an hour, even on a raft they get frosted by small waves and the icy air. The 4 people who were pulled out of the water by lifeboat 14 may consider themselves VERY lucky.
 

Adam Went

Member
Apr 28, 2003
1,193
7
168
There was an effort made on board to keep the passengers calm, which was the right thing to do. If passengers had come up to the boat deck and seen their furniture being dragged out and turned into a makeshift raft, even while the Titanic still had over 2 hours before sinking, what sort of effect would this have had on the passengers and the subsequent attempts to evacuate the ship? While anything is probable, there is no way that what you're suggesting could have been achieved given the circumstances of that night. As for the rafts, as Christophe rightly points out, the water was still freezing so even those passengers who were lucky enough to find debris to cling onto were probably only extending their life span for a couple of minutes at best.

Cheers,
Adam.
 

John Jaeger

Member
Sep 11, 2015
90
3
16
You obviously have never been in a traumatic situation such as being on a sinking vessel in the dead of night. And by the way, if you are intent on assigning probabilities to specific events in a historic timeline, you need to justify your choices, not assign random values as you did on your blog. You also need to check some the facts you stated which have long been dispelled.
As my dear father used to say, "You talk like a man with a paper a**hole."

1. I am a licensed pilot, and have been in highly stressful situations, both in training as well as in real time, alone in the aircraft.
2. I was certified as a scuba diver forty years, and likewise have been in life or death situations underwater, and made appropriate decisions there as well.
3. The idiot captain was charged with responsibility for the entire ship, crew, and passengers. Didn't you know that? Oh right. I forgot.
You live in Chicago. A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.

Smith's many mistakes began with his collision while commanding the Olympic. His mistakes only ended when he failed to oversee the proper evacuation of the vessel he sunk.

As to my assessment of probabilities, I need justify none of them to you. As I said, in case you did not bother to read, use your own. Maybe, just maybe, you can get the compound probability down to one in a hundred billion or so.

Your kind welcome to someone posting here for the very first time is typical of rude people who think they own the message board.
 

John Jaeger

Member
Sep 11, 2015
90
3
16
Wow! That would have took MANY 'thoughtful officers' to coordinate all that. Not only are we assuming that such feats could be pulled off, but we are also assuming there was enough man power to do all these things; launch the boats, man the boats, oversee all stated activities, coordinate passengers and crew, etc., etc. Even if there was enough man power, trying to build life rafts on a crowded deck? Survivalists have a hard time agreeing on how to build rafts when there are just two of them, plenty of room, and plenty of time. This would seem like a waste of human resource, when the best probability would be to fill the boats already at hand, not to hopefully construct sea worthy life rafts in a little under 2 hrs (when the evacuation actually began).
Then this involves passenger cooperation. Panic and confused ones at that. Plus language barriers. Plus, icebergs are HIGHLY unstable. Adding weight could cause it to capsize. Overall, these probabilities, as good as they may sound on paper, but that's all unfortunately.
Wow, you're welcome B-rad. Post something original and incisive, and what do you get here? Nothing but criticism.

1. The first thing I said was that the crew should have overseen proper evacuation, with all life rafts full plus 10 more people. Did you miss that?
2. They didn't need life jackets in the life rafts, did they? Leave them behind for raft construction.
3. The sea was dead calm. "Seaworthy" would not have come into play. Now what if they could not have built enough makeshift rafts? Whatever number they did construct would almost certainly have saved more lives.
4. The iceberg was already "capsized." Nine tenths of it was submerged. Hello!
 

John Jaeger

Member
Sep 11, 2015
90
3
16
Note to Adam Went:

Have you ever seen rafts used? People aren't laying in the water, particularly when they have extremely buoyant life jackets fastened underneath for support.

The negative and cynical groupthink here is very unfortunate.
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,103
174
223
Moderator's hat on:

Leave the personal attacks and offensive language outside. Neither is tolerated here.

Moderator's hat off.
 

Adam Went

Member
Apr 28, 2003
1,193
7
168
Hi John,

As somebody who has been a member here for over a decade, I won't disagree with you about the negativity that some members here convey, as I have encountered it myself on numerous occasions. However, there is a fine line between that and being a realist. Regarding the rafts, let's assume for the sake of argument that the ratio of rafts constructed to people in the water was 1 raft to every 10 people. Once both rafts and people were in the water, what you then would have had is a situation where the freezing survivors in the water, many of whom had limited if any swimming ability, would have swamped the rafts closest to themselves, rendering them useless. A similar situation very nearly occurred with the upturned collapsible lifeboat, and it was the same reasoning why the intact lifeboats did not return for those who were in the water. In order for what you're suggesting to be plausible, passengers would have almost had to be sent off in an orderly fashion from the ship while it was still afloat. We know this was not the case once the final lifeboats left.

Cheers,
Adam.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,985
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hello John!

I've been following this carefully. Your observations are justified given the amount of knowledge or lack of it you have regarding the subject matter. In that department, you are by no mans alone. Allow me to comment on what you wrote:

Now, suppose there had been one thoughtful officer on board, intent on saving as many passengers and crew as possible, as is every crewman's greatest responsibility.

If he had ordered:

1. The crew to fill every lifeboat to capacity, confiscating all life jackets from women and children before they debarked. In addition to the rated capacity, ten additional women and children were then loaded into each successive lifeboat launched. Then, after all the children and women were safely away,


He would have been a raving lunatic!

To fill every lifeboat to capacity at the onset would have been gross negligence and exhibit a dire lack of seamanship knowledge. The reason for this is very simple. Unlike modern lifeboats which use a single drum controlling two special steel wires to lower both end of the boat simultaneously, the ends of Titanic's lifeboats were lowered separately using individual manila ropes. This meant that boats would be lowered in jerks and at uneven rates. There was also a possibility that one end could get "hung-up". However the very worst case would be one end getting ahead of the other. It would be stopped suddenly and a shock load imposed in the lowering rope(fall). In a fully loaded boat, this would cause the rope to break, I trust I need not go into detail regarding the outcome of that? There was one incident when a boat did get 'hung-up' and another nearly landed on top of it.
You must bear in mind that control of the lowering depended on clear, precise communication between those on the boat in darkness and those 50 or 60 feet above them. You should try it some time.

To deprive everyone of a life jacket assumes that the weather will stay calm until a rescue vessel arrives and more to the point, finds all the lifeboats. Not a good idea. "I'll be keeping mine thank you!"


2. Men to be loaded in lifeboats, likewise with ten additional passengers in each lifeboat over its rated capacity. There was more than ample freeboard for such an overload, and the sea was calm. These two steps alone would have saved an additional 540 people.


Bad thinking Bat Man! For all the same reasons above. In addition: sure it was calm but that was abnormal for that part of the world. Believe me, if boats were loaded as you suggest and the usual South Westerly force 10 or 12 gale arrived, we would now be talking about close to 100% casualties.

3. Every able-bodied man on board to bring up on deck all wooden deck chairs, tables, and any furniture suitable for constructing as many wooden rafts as possible.


First you have to contact every man on board and decide who is and who is not able bodied. Then you have to find furniture which can easily be detached from it location. I have served on 3 passenger ships of similar vintage. Believe me friend, there would not have been nearly enough loose wood to be found. Ship furniture moves therefore most of it is integral with its surroundings. What little wood was available would need to be carted up through numerous passageways and narrow doorways to an open area suitable for construction. While this was going on, it would need supervision. It would also need to take place after the last boat was launched so that there would be officers left to supervise. Since your version of the evacuation involved many more people, it would take longer to load boats. Much longer if a single boat fall failed. The last fully loaded boats were sent away in a throw-caution-to-the-winds way because the ship was settling rapidly. That was half an hour before Titanic sank. Let's say for the sake of argument, your system used up another 15 minutes, That means you would have 15 minutes left to construct rafts. How many such raft would be constructed by untrained hands on a ship with a main deck tilted down by the head and heeled to port?

4. Every crewman to bring up on deck all hammers, saws, axes, wires, ropes, cables, straps, screws and nails suitable to fashion rafts with life jackets securely tied underneath them for buoyancy. Fabricated wooden rafts would be stiffened with longer pieces of wood or lightweight metal rods and a minimum of two paddles fabricated per raft of ten by ten feet. Simple boards would also work for paddles. All men aboard rafts to remain seated at all times, for stability.

The foregoing needs not an answer since it is totally impracticable.

5. Two officers and eight able-bodied men to take the first raft fabricated and carry hand tools to the iceberg and chip steps out and insert poles with hand ropes so that passengers and crew could climb off rafts, especially if there was an insufficient number of rafts constructed. (Approximately 100 would be needed.)


I admire your imagination John. Carpathia arrived as dawn was breaking. All this had to be done in pitch darkness. They had to find the iceberg and each other first in pitch darkness. Have you ever been at sea in pitch darkness? I don't think so. It would make an excellent book though. It would need however to be categorised as science fiction.

Then that one wise senior officer would have saved virtually all 1,517 who perished would have survived in the calm waters, until the Carpathia arrived just four hours later.

I have been very patient John and tried to be as constructive as possible but you must allow me this question: Would the officer in question have changed into a blue, skin-tight suit with a cape and the letter "S" emblazoned on his chest? Sorry John, I couldn't resist it.

I estimate that the improbable series of events leading to the loss of Titanic has a compound probability of 1 in 250 trillion trillion. Even if you were to use your own estimates and adjust them upward substantially upward, I doubt that you could achieve anything more likely than 1 chance in 10,000,000,000.


I leave comment on that last bit to wiser men than me.

I draw my answers from experience of actually having done all the things these guys did. I have also had to get myself out of the water with and without a life jacket on more than one occasion.
It has not been my intention to belittle your effort but I draw the line at your observation that Captain Smith was an idiot; he most certainly was not and I doubt very much if you are qualified to judge him or any of the lads on that ship. For your information, that evacuation was almost text book for 1912. It is highly unlikely that given the same circumstances, another crew would have done equally as well.

Jim C.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,379
751
273
Chicago, IL, USA
I see I hit a sensitive nerve.

One of my close friends while working at Bell Labs many years ago had this habit of criticizing the actions of others based on limited knowledge of circumstance or direct experience. He happened to be (and still is) a private pilot, just like myself and many others. He logged several 100s of hours without major incident until the day came when he crashed his Piper Cherokee on an unpaved field somewhere in the southwestern part of the US where he now lives. He was lucky enough to walk away suffering only severe damage to aircraft and pride. Needless to say, his attitude and how he interacts with others has changed since that experience. He soon learned that he could use an opportunity to either learn something from those who might just know something more than he does, or to alienate others by conveying an attitude of "I know better than anyone else."
 

John Jaeger

Member
Sep 11, 2015
90
3
16
Hi John,

As somebody who has been a member here for over a decade, I won't disagree with you about the negativity that some members here convey, as I have encountered it myself on numerous occasions. However, there is a fine line between that and being a realist. Regarding the rafts, let's assume for the sake of argument that the ratio of rafts constructed to people in the water was 1 raft to every 10 people. Once both rafts and people were in the water, what you then would have had is a situation where the freezing survivors in the water, many of whom had limited if any swimming ability, would have swamped the rafts closest to themselves, rendering them useless. A similar situation very nearly occurred with the upturned collapsible lifeboat, and it was the same reasoning why the intact lifeboats did not return for those who were in the water. In order for what you're suggesting to be plausible, passengers would have almost had to be sent off in an orderly fashion from the ship while it was still afloat. We know this was not the case once the final lifeboats left.

Cheers,
Adam.
"A fine line between" negativity "and being a realist"?

What is unrealistic about filling lifeboats to capacity?

What is unrealistic about assuming that 1,000 men could have fashioned life rafts, and perhaps even prepared the surface of the iceberg to receive survivors, from boats, which might then return to the ship?

You exhibit the very lack of realism which you lectured me on. First you assumed, for the sake of argument, 1 life raft for every 10 people.
Next you declared they "would have swamped the rafts closest to themselves." No, the rafts were specifically designed to support 10 people.
Didn't I say that?

Was there absolutely NO ROOM for anyone in this venue to appreciate the originality of thought I put into this, most notably Mr. Halpern?

Kicking people in the teeth is nowhere near any "fine line." But he's from Chicago, the very locale which put Barack Obama into office...
 

John Jaeger

Member
Sep 11, 2015
90
3
16
I see I hit a sensitive nerve.
No, you were simply rude and intolerant. That is quite obvious.

One of my close friends while working at Bell Labs many years ago had this habit of criticizing the actions of others based on limited knowledge of circumstance or direct experience.
Clearly you think your knowledge is unlimited, Mr. Halpern. Outlanders must "justify" themselves to your satisfaction, because, well, you know everything, don't you. Yours is the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority.

///
He soon learned that he could use an opportunity to either learn something from those who might just know something more than he does, or to alienate others by conveying an attitude of "I know better than anyone else."
This attitude of knowing better than anyone else came through loudly in your condescending, angry retort. Whether or not everything I wrote was exactly correct is not the point. The major point was the incredible series of profoundly improbable events, which, as far as I can tell, was an original analysis I created. You angrily denounced my efforts, utterly failing to appreciate the direction and effort. Anger comes from the heart of a foolish man. You should learn to contain your anger, sir.

NOT ONE PERSON has addressed the valid points I made, such as Smiths' failure to break open the chest containing binoculars. This singular trivial event may well have prevented the collision with the iceberg. What an ugly mob mentality. Very destructive.