Stanley Lord guilty as charged

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
If there had been any edy current, this would have distorted the rate and direction of swing...it did not.
Jim, as I've already told you I believe you. Your explanation of the swinging appears to be much more plausible than "airs and calms" Samuel allege.
However, you correctly said that the rate of the swinging caused by the Californian's created currents should have been constant.
Let's see if it was constant.
In his affidavit Mr. Stone said that the Californian was heading E.N.E at 12:08 a.m. and W.N.W. at 4 a.m.
It means that for around 4 hours the Californian rotated for 225 degrees, with the speed around .9 degree per minute.
At 3:20 a.m. the Californian was heading West. So from 3:20 a.m. to 4 a.m. the Californian rotated for 22.5 with the speed around .56 degree per minute.
At 1:50 a.m. the Californian was heading W.S.W. So from 12:08 a.m. to 1:50 a.m. the Californian rotated for 180 degrees with the speed around 1.76 degree per minute.

Then there's the testimony of the Captain Lord


6709. Then you stopped and reversed engines, and what did you do then?
- I turned round and headed E.N.E. by the compass. I twisted her head to E.N.E.

6710. Where had you been heading before?
- S. 89, W. true.

6711. You turned to E.N.E. by the compass?
- Yes, by the compass.

Then Mr. Groves testified that at the time he first noticed the steamer (around 1 hour after the Californian was stopped and heading E.N.E. ) the Californian was heading N.E.

Could you please explain how come that the Californian turned from E.N.E. to N.E. and then to E.N.E. again and how you could explain that from 12:08 a.m. to 4 a.m. her swinging rate was anything but constant.

I am more than ready to accept your explanation of the swinging if you could explain the issues I pointed out.
I think it is an interesting challenge for you because you were the Marine accident investigator.
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,007
619
213
Funchal. Madeira
I am inclined to take the evidence of bearings and headingsgive by the officers with a pinch of salt. I think there was a mix up between true directions and compass directions.
However, there is one bit of evidence relative to the rate of swing which cannot be denied and that came from 2nd officer Stone and Apprentice Gibson.
Stone stated that when he came on the bridge at 12-10 am, the nearby vessel was just abaft the starboard beam. Shortly after that, Gibson arrived and noted that the same vessel was then exactly abeam. Almost exactly three hours later, both men saw carpathia's tockets right on the horizon and abeam to port. That was a bow-swing of exactly 180 degrees. Shotly after that, the wind rose form the northward and Californian would have aligned herself at almost right angles to it's then, direction and stopped swinging.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
Mr. Gibson could have forgotten the relative bearing he took too.

However, right now I am mostly interested in the time between the Californian was stopped and 12:08 a.m. Californian was stopped at 10:21 p.m. on April 14. According to the Master he twisted her to head E.N.E. At 12:08 a.m. she was heading E.N.E. According to both Mr. Groves and Mr. Stone. So she was heading E.N.E. At 10:21 p.m. and E.N.E. Almost 2 hours later. Do you believe that Captain Lord’s 10:21 p.m. heading was incorrect? Even if some were using true and others compass directions it still cannot be right. Should we now agree that the Californian started her clockwise swinging not at the time she was stopped but sometime later?

Maybe that is why Mr. Groves was confused about the direction of the rotation? Maybe at first the Californian was swinging counter-clockwise?

8246. Was she keeping her same position?
- The same position, yes. We were swinging slowly to port, very slowly.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,419
765
273
Chicago, IL, USA
I agree it isn’t easy to explain. However, take a look at this article
Interesting video and very cute tank experiments. It also explains why once a ship was put into a turn and the engine stopped it will NOT continue to turn forever at a constant rate. In the case of Californian, the direction of turn was opposite to that shown in the video when it came up to the ice, but nonetheless, its swing to starboard due to that initial turn it was put in will dampen out and stop because of its lateral resistance. Without some other external force to keep it swinging, the swinging motion would have ended within a few minutes.

As far as a ship in an eddy turning opposite to the direction of eddy flow, I think you and Mila will find it hard to explain. Notice the direction that your little leaf was rotating in that video you posted. Same direction of the eddy, not the opposite.

I agree it isn’t easy to explain.
Perhaps a real stopped ship caught in an eddy will turn only in the direction of the eddy as shown below.
44827
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,419
765
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Could you please explain how come that the Californian turned from E.N.E. to N.E. and then to E.N.E. again and how you could explain that from 12:08 a.m. to 4 a.m. her swinging rate was anything but constant.
Could it be Alex that the swinging was somewhat erratic at times cause by variable shifting light winds between the calms?
I am inclined to take the evidence of bearings and headings give by the officers with a pinch of salt. I think there was a mix up between true directions and compass directions.
Lord said ENE by compass. So did Stone and so did Groves. In fact, Stone wrote: "I went on the bridge about 8 minutes past 12, and took over the Watch from the Third Officer, Mr. Groves, who also pointed out ice and steamer and said our head was E.N.E. and we were swinging. On looking at the compass I saw this was correct and observed the other steamer S.S.E dead abeam."
We know the problem that that creates for you. If what they all said were true, Californian could not have been where Lord said she was.
Stone stated that when he came on the bridge at 12-10 am, the nearby vessel was just abaft the starboard beam. Shortly after that, Gibson arrived and noted that the same vessel was then exactly abeam.
It was a little abaft the beam prior to his coming on the bridge to relieve Groves. It was Lord who pointed the steamer out to Stone before Stone arrived on the upper bridge. We know the steamer was several points abaft the beam when she stopped around 11:30, at least according to Groves. When Stone went to the compass upon hearing Grove's report, he "observed the other steamer S.S.E dead abeam." This was a few minutes before Gibson arrived.
Almost exactly three hours later, both men saw carpathia's tockets right on the horizon and abeam to port.
Actually 2 points before the port beam, then right on the beam, and then 2 points before the beam again according to Gibson. Stone, who saw the last two of these, said that they were "a little distance apart." I suppose you need to take these sightings also with a pinch of salt?
Maybe that is why Mr. Groves was confused about the direction of the rotation? Maybe at first the Californian was swinging counter-clockwise?
8246. Was she keeping her same position?
- The same position, yes. We were swinging slowly to port, very slowly.
Groves was clearly confused. Read on Alex:
8247. Did you not take her bearing by the compass? - Not that steamer’s bearing, no.
8248. She would appear to be coming round more towards your stern? - No, she would appear, as we were swinging, to be working towards our head.
8249. I thought you were swinging to port? - No, we were swinging to starboard - that is, to the right hand.

Have fun you guys.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
Could it be Alex that the swinging was somewhat erratic at times cause by variable shifting light winds between the calms?
Groves was clearly confused.
It appears you contradict yourself, Samuel. If the Californian swinging was somewhat erratic, then it means that Mr. Groves was not confused because the Californian was swinging in different directions.
As far as a ship in an eddy turning opposite to the direction of eddy flow, I think you and Mila will find it hard to explain. Notice the direction that your little leaf was rotating in that video you posted. Same direction of the eddy, not the opposite.
It could be explained. Ocean eddies have complex structures and complex currents.
For example, please take a look at this article Error - Cookies Turned Off
“The concentration of various admixtures and supply of nutrients in the surface layer are controlled by mesoscale eddy structures (vortices, vortex dipoles, and associated eddies), filaments, and jets...”

Let’s say there were a few vortices inside the Californian’s eddy, and she got caught in the one that was rotating clockwise.
The eddies also have lateral currents. In cold core eddies such currents would be running towards their centers. So the Californian’s drift could have been affected by the rotation of the eddy and in addition by it lateral currents. These lateral currents could have been responsible for the swinging just as Jim explained when he talked about ships-generated sideways currents. These currents could have made the Californian to swing in the direction opposite to the direction of the rotation.
Have you ever seen Devil’s wheel?

See how people move laterally? They of course move away from the middle of the wheel, but an object that is drifting in a cold core eddy moves towards the middle.

Drifting in eddy speculation explains most things that no other speculation does.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
It's strange that for the first 1.5 hours after the stop the Californian was swinging back and forth starting from E.N.E. and finishing on E.N.E. but Mr. Groves testified she was swinging round. It is even stranger that for the next 4 hours the Californian was swinging clockwise and clockwise only. Maybe Capetian Lord provided an incorrect heading to begin with?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,007
619
213
Funchal. Madeira
Could it be Alex that the swinging was somewhat erratic at times cause by variable shifting light winds between the calms?

Lord said ENE by compass. So did Stone and so did Groves. In fact, Stone wrote: "I went on the bridge about 8 minutes past 12, and took over the Watch from the Third Officer, Mr. Groves, who also pointed out ice and steamer and said our head was E.N.E. and we were swinging. On looking at the compass I saw this was correct and observed the other steamer S.S.E dead abeam."
We know the problem that that creates for you. If what they all said were true, Californian could not have been where Lord said she was.
It was a little abaft the beam prior to his coming on the bridge to relieve Groves. It was Lord who pointed the steamer out to Stone before Stone arrived on the upper bridge. We know the steamer was several points abaft the beam when she stopped around 11:30, at least according to Groves. When Stone went to the compass upon hearing Grove's report, he "observed the other steamer S.S.E dead abeam." This was a few minutes before Gibson arrived.

Actually 2 points before the port beam, then right on the beam, and then 2 points before the beam again according to Gibson. Stone, who saw the last two of these, said that they were "a little distance apart." I suppose you need to take these sightings also with a pinch of salt?

Groves was clearly confused. Read on Alex:
8247. Did you not take her bearing by the compass? - Not that steamer’s bearing, no.
8248. She would appear to be coming round more towards your stern? - No, she would appear, as we were swinging, to be working towards our head.
8249. I thought you were swinging to port? - No, we were swinging to starboard - that is, to the right hand.

Have fun you guys.
Hello Sam.

Light winds could affect the way a stopped ship was swinging, but you do not get light winds in the middle of the night in an intense Anti Cyclone such as was the case that night when the air was almost freezing.

In his report to Captain Lord on April 18, Stone did not write that the ship was heading ENE by compass, I remind you:
"Mr. Groves, who also pointed out ice and steamer and said our head was E.N.E. and we were swinging. On looking at the compass I saw this was correct and observed the other steamer S.S.E dead abeam"
Stone found that the report by Groves that the ship was heading ENE and that she was swinging was correct. How do you know Stone was referring to the ships heading or the fact that she was swinging? Or that he, as did many navigators, automatically applied the compass error?

Without glossing over facts, how do you explain that although Captain Lord had no idea where Titanic was at 10-21 pm that night when Californian stopped for the ice, ...he calculated a DR position for his ship which showed the real position of the sinking Titanic to be almost exactly SSE True, not SSE Compass, from Californian?

I have no problem with reconciling Californian's stopped position with that of the sinking Titanic, because, unlike you, I have considered all the available evidence. The only way anyone can reject Captain Lord's DR position for where his ship stopped that night is by ignoring no less that 5 separate bits of evidence which proved him to be correct. But then. I am sure you know that already and I am euqally sure i know why you ignore them as you have ignored so many other bits of evidence.

Groves very clearly described a 12 knots ship carrying two (not one) white masthead lights approaching from the south for half an hour. A ship which, by the description of the approach given by Groves should have been showing a green side light for over half an hour. Now get this...if Groves saw a ship approaching for half an hour, then those on that vessel could see Californian for that self same period of time. But it gets better, he said that at the time...50 minutes after they stopped, Californian was still heading NE. Not only that, but after another 50 minutes, the ship was still heading NE (or ENE). Really?
Groves also said that his ship was showing a red port side light until it was shut out as she turned to port . Reminds me of the old US sit-com "Soap" which after the explanation of the principal characters finished with "Confused?...you will be after watching this".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lyle

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
Groves saw a ship approaching for half an hour, then those on that vessel could see Californian for that self same period of time.
Not if the Californian’s navigational lights were not as bright as the Titanic’s.

Groves should have been showing a green side light for over half an hour
Mr. Groves said he could not see the sidelight because of the glare of many deck lights.
But it gets better, he said that at the time...50 minutes after they stopped, Californian was still heading NE. Not only that, but after another 50 minutes, the ship was still heading NE (or ENE). Really?
Captain Lord said the Californian was heading ENE when he stopped her. Mr. Stone said the Californian was heading ENE, when 1.5 hours later he came to the bridge. What Mr. Groves testimony has to do with the testimonies of Captain Lord and Mr. Stone? Your speculation about the cause of the swinging would not work if Captain Lord was correct.
(not one) white masthead lights
The second masthead light could have been a star or Mr. Groves could have forgotten some details. You don’t allege that Mr. Groves observed two different steamers, one with two masthead lights, and the other he pointed out to Mr. Stone that had one masthead light, do you? Mr. Stone who probably was more observant than Mr. Groves saw only one masthead light.
In his report to Captain Lord on April 18, Stone did not write that the ship was heading ENE by compass, I remind you:
"Mr. Groves, who also pointed out ice and steamer and said our head was E.N.E. and we were swinging. On looking at the compass I saw this was correct and observed the other steamer S.S.E dead abeam"
Stone found that the report by Groves that the ship was heading ENE and that she was swinging was correct. How do you know Stone was referring to the ships heading or the fact that she was swinging? Or that he, as did many navigators, automatically applied the compass error?
In his testimony Mr. Stone mentioned compass a few times. He had never mentioned true bearing. He testified he was using a compass to take the bearing of the steamer , the Titanic. Why would he use true direction for the heading?
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,419
765
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Or that he, as did many navigators, automatically applied the compass error?
Hmmm? They were not talking about true headings or bearings. Groves: "At the time I left the bridge we were heading E.N.E. by compass."
Can it be any clearer? And if her head was pointing "E.N.E. by compass", then Stone's "and observed the other steamer S.S.E dead abeam" is also by compass because if your head is pointing ENE by compass, dead abeam on your starboard side is SSE by compass.
I have considered all the available evidence
And clearly reject all that contradicts what you want to believe.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
991
455
73
South Wales UK
Oh dear!

And I promised myself not to contribute to this thread again! (I regard it as a most valuable and important thread and resource - but I think it was concluded it had 'run it's course' by last year...).

I am not going to get tied up in 'Alex P's' points, but for you, Jim, to accuse Sam of not considering all the evidence, is not fair at all. You might arrive at different conclusions, but that has been a feature of 'The Californian Incident' since 1912.

If you examine Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit (prepared by Harrison on the basis of Captain Lord's own papers retained), and the 1961 taped recorded interview transcripts, Captain Lord makes no allowance for his ship swinging around clockwise, probably erratically, and then ending up the following morning pointing the opposite way (I am simplifying this). Captain Lord also made the same mistake in 1912, despite the evidence being so obvious - he retires to the chart room shortly before midnight, and comes up on the bridge some 4 hours 45 minutes later when roused by Stewart, and makes no account of The Californian having completely swung around.

Boxhall also makes no allowance in his observations, when he was busy with other things, and his night vision impaired, for any possibility of Titanic swinging round.

Poor old penny pinching Boxhall, firing off far too few rockets, not at 'short intervals' that freezing cold night, and probably already suffering the effects of pleurisy, and mucking up his CQD position, and a near full box of unused distress rockets is recorded on the wreck site. So penny pinching he writes to the Board of Trade asking why his expenses haven't been paid. So penny pinching he even applies to the MMSA for money in retirement despite not being a member! So penny pinching he quibbles with a correspondent over the cost of postage.

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Currie

Bob_Read

Member
May 9, 2019
310
117
43
USA
I have always wondered why were no distress signals launched from the signal socket on the port side of the docking bridge?
 
Last edited:

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
991
455
73
South Wales UK
Hi Bob,

I think they might possibly have been on the Carpathia, which might possibly account for Gibson seeing the 3 he saw at differing points off the port beam.

I don't know why Gibson stated they were fired off at 3 minute intervals, and I have looked at the transcript of his evidence trying to find an error on the secretaries typing it all up, but cannot fathom this 3 minutes between the distress rockets fired from the Carpathia, other than witness fatigue in the witness box which is quite apparent to me in the later part of his testimony at the British Inquiry.

Rostron may have fired off a distress rocket everytime he saw one of Boxhall's green flares, though Rostron's own account is that they were fired off at 15 minute intervals - presumably so they would NOT be regarded as being as fired at 'short intervals' as per the regulations for distress rockets, and he had sent out a wireless message warning other ships in effect to disregard them.

I happen to think that Rostron's account, in it's various guises, has a big dollop of fiction included from a very early point in time.

I don't myself think Rostron was on the "qui vive" as he claimed, not on the bridge; giving instead attention to preparations to receive survivors.

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
991
455
73
South Wales UK
Here is something I hadn't previously come across:-

‘We were the second ‘boat on the scene of disaster,’ ‘Californian’s’ operator, Evans, signaled us at 4.52 p.m. – in what I still regard as the most pathetic message of the whole series. ‘All we could see were some boxes and coats and a few empty boats and what looked like oil on the water. When we were near the ‘Carpathia’ he would not answer me though I kept calling him as I wanted, the position. He kept on talking to the ‘Baltic’ The latter says he is going to report me for jamming. We were the nearer boat to the ‘Carpathia’.

Alec Bagot, 2nd Marconi Officer on the Olympic. The Olympic original handwritten PV (that survives at the Bodliean at Oxford) states only "Sigs MWL" at 4.50pm.


Cheers,
Julian
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,007
619
213
Funchal. Madeira
I do not expect to get any sensible argument form this, but here is the proof that Captain Lord was spot-on with his stopped position that night. I show it in the form of a plot of independent evidence.
It also shows that the bearings given of the nearby vessel and subsequently the rockets were abolutely wrong by the amount of the compass error. If I have plotted it properly and the trend of the pack ice indicatd by it drawn in, then it is blatantly obvious the SS Californian had to have been stopped very close where her Captain said she stopped and that the sinking Titanic bore SSE True from her and that the distance separating the Californian from the sinking Titanic was about 22 miles.

Evidence and source:
1: From the site of Dr Paul Lee: Ice Report from the SS Trautenfels on April 14. The time was probably EST
"42.01 N 50.06 W "5.40am heavy field ice was encountered which extended for a distance of 30m and made it necessary for the steamer to run in a southwesterly
2. From the site of Dr Paul Lee: Ice Report from the SS Mesaba April 14 Time probably EST.
"42.00 N 50.00 W 41....""Noon Lat 42.02N Long 49.25W ... At 2pm, "passed another field of pack ice with numerous bergs intermixed, and extended from 4 points on the starboard bow to abeam on the port side. Had to steer about 20 miles south to clear it.
3. From the site of Dr, Paul Lee: Ice report from the SS Californian April 14, Time 8-30 pm EST:
"42.05 N 50.07 W" 10.20 pm Encountered field ice, about 5 miles wide, stretching north and south; also icebergs"

The above reports cover a period of 15 hours, 50 minutes, from 5-40 am until 8-30 pom on April 14, 1912. They describe the eastern edge of a barrier of heavy pack ice 16 + feet high extending in the direction of NNW to SSE before turning due south. There is nothing in this evidence which is contrived, bent or embelished and the following little plot shows it as it is.
It seems that until now, this evidence has been completely missed or dismissed by enthusiasts and by the MAIB professionals. If, as I beleive, it is fundamentally correct, then it makes a nonsense of the claim that the pack ice barrier trended NW to SE near to where the Californian stopped for it that night of April 14. If for nothing else than the fact that both Californian and the Mount Temple would have been in the middle of it at 7-30 am on the morning of April,15... more so, if as claimed it was 5 miles wide. See here:
Ice plot.jpg
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,007
619
213
Funchal. Madeira
Oh dear!

And I promised myself not to contribute to this thread again! (I regard it as a most valuable and important thread and resource - but I think it was concluded it had 'run it's course' by last year...).

I am not going to get tied up in 'Alex P's' points, but for you, Jim, to accuse Sam of not considering all the evidence, is not fair at all. You might arrive at different conclusions, but that has been a feature of 'The Californian Incident' since 1912.

If you examine Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit (prepared by Harrison on the basis of Captain Lord's own papers retained), and the 1961 taped recorded interview transcripts, Captain Lord makes no allowance for his ship swinging around clockwise, probably erratically, and then ending up the following morning pointing the opposite way (I am simplifying this). Captain Lord also made the same mistake in 1912, despite the evidence being so obvious - he retires to the chart room shortly before midnight, and comes up on the bridge some 4 hours 45 minutes later when roused by Stewart, and makes no account of The Californian having completely swung around.

Boxhall also makes no allowance in his observations, when he was busy with other things, and his night vision impaired, for any possibility of Titanic swinging round.

Poor old penny pinching Boxhall, firing off far too few rockets, not at 'short intervals' that freezing cold night, and probably already suffering the effects of pleurisy, and mucking up his CQD position, and a near full box of unused distress rockets is recorded on the wreck site. So penny pinching he writes to the Board of Trade asking why his expenses haven't been paid. So penny pinching he even applies to the MMSA for money in retirement despite not being a member! So penny pinching he quibbles with a correspondent over the cost of postage.

Cheers,

Julian
Hello Julian.

The biggest problem with this case is the "flash of inspiration". When that happens, then the careful analysis is chucked out the window.
In many cases it is like starting with a picture of the jigsaw and all you have to do is make the bits fit. Here is a classic example.

There was a ship seen on Titanic's port bow. "Ah! That must have been Californian".

Q: But wait a minute...Titanic turned south to avoid the iceberg then stopped. So how could that be possible? Not only that, but her 4th Officer Boxhall described and even emphasised the fact at both Inquiries that the vessel he saw was approaching while all that time, Californian was stopped . How then could that other ship possibly have been the Californian? Enter "Flash" the inspiration stage left.:.

Q: "Hang on a minute...didn't I read somewhere that there was a second helm order? "
A: "That's it! That second helm order was part of the iceberg avoidance manoeuvre."
Q: "But wait a minute, didnt Titanic's Quartermaster say that he only received a single helm order?"
A: "Yes he did, but never mind about it, the standby QM said he heard a second one given when he was on the bridge. I'm sure that was it"
Q: " But how could the ship check her left hand turn then turn in the opposite direction if she was rapidly slowing down?
A: " Never mind that! She did turn north and that's how she pointed north and had Californian on her port bow."
Q: "But how did she keep swinging to the right after she stopped and her bow was sinking deeper in the water?
A: "That dioesn't matter, she did."
Q: "if that is what happened, why didn't the Technical Assessors asigned to each Inquiry not know about it? Why was it said that they did not know in which way Titanic was heading."? In fact, I beleive they said so in their Final Report.

OK! Julian, the foregoing is a bit of a fun dig . However it has a very serious consequence. Because as I have pointed out ad nauseum, if Titanic did not turn North, then we have not one, but two mystery vessels, none of which was the Californian. It also means that all the literary mileage that has been made out of making Captain Lord the bumbling, arrogant incompetant heartless homus illegitimus who turned away needs to be scrapped.

Then there is the question of the rockets seen from Californian at 3-15 am that morning.

Setting aside the peculiarities of who described what, there seems to be concesus that Stone and Gibson saw the rocket or rockets fired from the deck of the Carpathia. The argument concerning number and bearing pales into insignificance when we analyse the common part of the evidence...they were seen by both men right on the horizon.
Again, avoiding the niceties of right- on or nearly right on the horizon, and even Sam's outrageous suggestion that these two could not recognise a horizon when they couldn't see one... if these rockets were anywhere nearly on the visible horizon, then Lord's stopped DR position was once gain verified correct or as nearly correct as made no difference.

Last but not least...was Lord told of one or more than one positive sighting of a rocket?

Lord said he was told of a sungle rocket and Gibson corroborated his claim. What he should have done is a matter of opinion. However, I suggest that any such opinion should be an edcucated one based on the peculiar circumstaces of the case and on what Lord knew realative to what he was told, including who told it to him.
Any personal opinion concerning what Lord's actions subsequent to being informed about a single rocket should be offered in a constructive manner, not from a "gut feeling" or any ideas of nobility. or worse still "Well, it sems to me that's what he should have done
 
Last edited:

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
Perhaps a real stopped ship caught in an eddy will turn only in the direction of the eddy as shown below.
Mila asked a professor who writes about eddies this very question.
Here is his response

A cold core eddy rotates anticlockwise so the bulk motion of a ship in a cold core eddy would be like an anticlockwise "orbit" round the centre of the eddy. However, the ship's rotation about its own centre (call it the "spin", or "yaw" in navigation-speak) is a different thing. If it was on the outer edge of a cold core eddy, it would spin clockwise. Think of a ship with its stern in the eddy, but its bow outside the eddy (an exaggeration, but gives the right idea). But there can be more complex structures than just eddies, and structures within eddies.

A current in the area, eddy current or otherwise, cannot explain the change in bearings from SSE to SWxW over the time period reported. I'll be happy to prove that to you once again. But these Californian related topics should be taken off this thread and put on the Lord guilty as charged thread or the Interrogation of Stone thread.
Right it cannot explain the change in bearings from SSE to SWxW, but it can explain some change in bearings, it can explain the swinging, it can explain the testimony of Mr.Boxhall about a steamer that was approaching, it can explain why the Californian navigational lights were noticed only after midnight, it can explain why the Carpathia rockets were seen SSW and it can explain some other things that so far nobody else have been able to explain.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
991
455
73
South Wales UK
Oh dear!

I'm under fire tonight!

Hi Jim,

I am well aware Boxhall stated Titanic was heading westwards when it stopped. I am also well aware that there is not a huge amount of definitive evidence she ended up facing northwards - just Rowe, and some convoluted explanations of what was seen from some lifeboats - when their occupants had been through an horrendous ordeal and would be traumatised, plus frozen solid.

Your pic above is actually quite similar to one Sam did for your 'Parisian destination thread' in 2008. You could have added to your above post the SS Parisian hydrographic report.

I have never got my head round Grove's other passenger steamer coming up obliquely showing it's red port sidelight before his precise 11.40pm Californian ship's time shutting it's lights in - even allowing for his wrist watch running 5 minutes fast - which would put what he saw at 11.35pm which is even more confusing. (He said The Californian stopped at 10.26pm rather than Captain Lord's 10.21pm). And there was no clock on the flying bridge anyway - a clock in the dark unused wheelhouse underneath, and also a clock - no one refers to it as a chronometer - in the electric light lit chart room, also underneath the flying bridge.

Your pic/drawing above makes a number of assumptions, and disregards Groves' timings on the morning of the 15th. It also disregards Captain Roston stating in early press reports and his Company report, and his USA Inquiry testimony that The Californian got to Carpathia 30 minutes earlier, and the timing of the Ogden pics of The Californian alongside at 8am. Rostron also was responsible for an early on telegram when he got to his destination giving an earlier timing.

Quite a lot of ships said they steamed south west away from the ice field when the got to it or someway off it such as Parisian, and Carpathia. Rostron's steaming away from where he picked up the lifeboats to the south west is another thing I've never got my head round! I can sort of understand the Parisian doing this from a further distance away, but not Carpathia.

Anyway, to a nautical dunce such as me it makes my head hurt! I ought to get my head round it all.

Cheers,

Julian
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,419
765
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Evidence and source:
1: From the site of Dr Paul Lee: Ice Report from the SS Trautenfels on April 14. The time was probably EST
"42.01 N 50.06 W "5.40am heavy field ice was encountered which extended for a distance of 30m and made it necessary for the steamer to run in a southwesterly
So if they encountered this 30m long field at the coordinates given, and the field was as your diagram shows, then running southwesterly to clear it would make no sense. But they were not the only vessel that said they ran southwesterly to clear it.
2. From the site of Dr Paul Lee: Ice Report from the SS Mesaba April 14 Time probably EST.
"42.00 N 50.00 W 41....""Noon Lat 42.02N Long 49.25W ... At 2pm, "passed another field of pack ice with numerous bergs intermixed, and extended from 4 points on the starboard bow to abeam on the port side. Had to steer about 20 miles south to clear it.
Look at this report from Mesaba to Parisian that same day:
“Yes had to steer SW to clear end of ice which was in about Lat 41.35N Long 50.30W Now 11.30 pm GMT Long 51.28W Weather nice and clear No ice in sight Regards Clarke.”
On Monday, Apr 15, Californian had to cut through the ice going almost due west down in lat 41.33N to get to the other side. That latitude came from sun sight ay LAN. Yet, on Apr 14th, Mesaba had to only go down to lat 41.35N to get clear of it, and they steered southwestward to clear according Capt. Clarke.
3. From the site of Dr, Paul Lee: Ice report from the SS Californian April 14, Time 8-30 pm EST:
"42.05 N 50.07 W" 10.20 pm Encountered field ice, about 5 miles wide, stretching north and south; also icebergs"
Hmmm? Lord said the ice was 5 miles wide that he encountered in the ice report he filed. This is consistent with the 5-6 miles wide that Capt. Moore's officers estimated. But you say otherwise.

And then we have this report from Parisian to Olympic on the 15th:
"Safe from field ice to 41.22. 50.14; as the ice was yesterday, you would need to steer from that position about northeast and north to about lat. 41.42 and [lon.] 50, then approach his position from the westward [sic], steering
about west north-west. My knowledge of the Titanic’s position at midnight was derived from your own message to New York, in which you gave it as 41.47, 50.20; if such were correct, she would be in heavy field ice and numerous bergs. Hope and trust matters are not as bad as they appear. HAINS."

And then on the 15th we have from Rostron that by midday Monday on 15th the southernmost point of the pack ice had extended as far south as latitude 41.16N.

But I guess you still can't accept that the ice was moving southward, afterall, according to you there was no south setting current, and the MAIB investigators didn't know what they were talking about.