Superior mirage and the Californian


Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
I would agree with Jim that the Chapin account, though interesting, is not is not an account of what Hichens said in his own words on Carpathia. It is a very poor source. No quotes, and smacks of something carefully contrived.

I disagree with that, not completely but to a certain degree. The other reports from Gracie, Duff-Gordon, Williams etc. Chapin wrote are also written in the same style with no quotes. It is very possible Chapin talk with them and then only wrote a kind of summary.

It cannot possibly take precedence over what Hichens said in testimony.

That is true. However I pointed out the Chapin report as it has been stated by Aaron that Hichens made no mention of helm orders and made the order up at the inquiry.

As a side note, there are newspaper accounts by a Quartermaster Moody. I knew a few researchers who believe it was actually Hichens using a false name (that of 6th Officer Moody). While I do not agree with them his newspaper accounts did mention a helm order (port your helm).
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
That is true. However I pointed out the Chapin report as it has been stated by Aaron that Hichens made no mention of helm orders and made the order up at the inquiry.

As a side note, there are newspaper accounts by a Quartermaster Moody. I knew a few researchers who believe it was actually Hichens using a false name (that of 6th Officer Moody). While I do not agree with them his newspaper accounts did mention a helm order (port your helm).


I don't believe Hichens personally made up the hard a-starboard order. I believe the fatal iceberg appeared far too close for them to do anything and it was in all their best interests to create a scenario which showed they had sufficient time to turn their ship away and reverse the engines full astern and this would justify their speed at the Inquiry so that no act of negligence could be made against them. e.g. The Carpathia saw an iceberg close to their ship at daylight. If the Titanic had struck that iceberg before they had a chance to see, report, react, and respond, and attempt to get out of the way, then it would appear to the judgemental eyes of the Inquiry that they were going far too fast to see it, and that would open up all kinds of acts of negligence against the crew and company.

I believe Boxhall was chosen to support the narrative that the order hard a-starboard was given and that the engines were reversed full speed astern, and that is why Boxhall made no mention of the only real order I believe was given 'hard a-port' because it was well established in the Inquiry that the iceberg struck their starboard bow and it would not look good in the novice eyes of the Inquiry if Boxhall had stated that the helmsman had turned right and not left. Murdoch wanted to swing their stern clear of the iceberg 'after' they had collided, but that would mean admitting that they were too late to avoid it and were only acting on impulse after the collision to limit the damage and swing the stern away.

So by stating that they just turned left and reversed the engines full astern was all Boxhall was willing to say at the Inquiries and Hichens was only willing to say he turned left in an attempt to avoid the iceberg at the Inquiries, and together that created the narrative that they had time to try and get out of the path of the iceberg and thereby justifying their speed to the Inquiry.


.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 22, 2003
6,527
1,810
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Boxhall said he was in his cabin drinking tea when the bell rang. He failed to mention that at the Inquiry.
He didn't fail to mention it. he deliberately didn't mention it. What he said at the British inquiry was that he was just coming out of the officer's quarters when the lookout bells rang. He never said what he was doing before coming out. At the American inquiry he said he was walking alongside the officer's quarters when the bells came. Already outside. Three different accounts, all first hand. Which, if any, should we believe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Very true. I have heard there was another account from Boxhall that was featured in a shipping magazine. Wonder if it sheds any more clues as to what really went on that night.


.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,390
675
188
South Wales UK
Hi Aaron,

I think you are pretty much spot on with your above post. It is quite clear to me the iceberg was seen far too late, for whatever reason, and I don't think anyone would disagree with this.

The resulting panic on the bridge resulted in who knows what. No one who survived knew for sure. Olliver was doing errands, Hichens was set apart from the bridge in the wheelhouse, and Fleet and Lee were far from the bridge in the freezing bitter cold of the crows nest.

The engine room/boiler room testimony quoted by Jim is also conflicting.

2 Inquiries, various newspaper contemporaneous reports, and still no clear evidence as to what happened for a very simple reason... Murdoch who gave the orders was dead as was Moody, as was anyone who might have been able to give a definitive account from the engine room. One might speculate that had Murdoch and Moody survived they might not have given an accurate account in testimony in any event.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,390
675
188
South Wales UK
He didn't fail to mention it. he deliberately didn't mention it. What he said at the British inquiry was that he was just coming out of the officer's quarters when the lookout bells rang. He never said what he was doing before coming out. At the American inquiry he said he was walking alongside the officer's quarters when the bells came. Already outside. Three different accounts, all first hand. Which, if any, should we believe?

Hi Sam,

If in 1912, Boxhall could have quoted back to him what he stated in his 1962 BBC interview, he would have been utterly discredited as a witness.

Had the wreck position of 1985 been quoted back to him in 1912, he would have been further utterly discredited.

To my way of thinking, Boxhall had all the same traits of Groves in elevating their own importance in the disaster after the event.

Is there nothing in the Walter Lord archive at the NMM Greenwich between Boxhall and Walter Lord? I don't recall anything listed off the top of my head. Surprising, if my memory is correct.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
735
208
England
All we can do is speculate to the best of our ability and experience and ask others to help us fill in the blanks. There is no other way to ascertain what may have happened. This is why very few researchers agree on most things about the Titanic story e.g. the crew's watches, the ship's position, their direction, the collision, the damage, the sequence of the evacuation, the breaking, the sinking, the Inquiries, the witnesses, the various sources, and the inconsistencies.

But there's speculation based on the available evidence and then there's wild speculation based on nothing more than your imagination.

Most, if not all the things you speculate above about Boxhall are either totally irrelevant to our understanding of events or totally impossible to prove.

There is a strong weight of evidence to suggest in accordance with the IMM rule book, that Boxhall was attending to his duties at the standard compass. How long did.this task take? We don't know. Did he return toward the bridge afterwards? He said he was walking towards it in his testimony. Did he complete his task at the compass and then go to his cabin? He said he was there in 1962.

That's what we need to speculate on. Boxhall wasn't on the bridge in the crucial minutes before impact. That much I think we can all agree. As I said above, it doesn't matter if he was dancing down the companion way in a Mankini singing I'm a little teapot in the moments before the crash, he had no role in events until he enters stage right a few moments later.

Fantasy and speculation are not the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
735
208
England
If the Titanic had struck that iceberg before they had a chance to see, report, react, and respond, and attempt to get out of the way, then it would appear to the judgemental eyes of the Inquiry that they were going far too fast to see it, and that would open up all kinds of acts of negligence against the crew and company.

Well all their efforts to confuse the inquiry worked well then:

(from the British inquiry)

14. (a.) What was the speed of the "Titanic" shortly before and at the moment of the casualty? (b.) Was such speed excessive under the circumstances?

Answer:

(a.) About 22 knots.
(b.) Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
It is quite clear to me the iceberg was seen far too late,

The one iceberg Carpathia nearly hit when going towards Titanic boat No. 2 was also seen to late, even with the double lookout at the bow as well the bridge full of officers. No one there was sleeping or had a tea party. It was simply seen to late same as on Titanic.
Did some of the survivors don't tell the truth? Sure!



The resulting panic on the bridge resulted in who knows what. No one who survived knew for sure. Olliver was doing errands, Hichens was set apart from the bridge in the wheelhouse, and Fleet and Lee were far from the bridge in the freezing bitter cold of the crows nest.

The engine room/boiler room testimony quoted by Jim is also conflicting.

Actually there are conflicting testimony about nearly all events from the time of the collision up to the final plunge, but I guess this is the case when there are so many people presenting what they remember and experienced and possibly got influenced by what others told them. (As I have stated in a short article a few years ago, I do not believe the version of Olliver and Boxhall to have been not there. Olliver knows to much and what was Boxhall doing?!)
 
Last edited:

Mikael K

Member
Nov 3, 2017
36
32
48
Major Peuchen testified under oath at the US Inquiry. Which makes your quote above puzzling because Fleet's account would not overrule Peuchen's. Since Peuchen had little interest in protecting his career at the Inquiry and Fleet did, we can easily assume that Peuchen's evidence is more trustworthy and overrules what Fleet said which is why I believe Peuchen is right in what he says and Fleet was protecting himself i.e. covering up what happened in the same manner that Hichens and Boxhall did regarding their own self interests and preservation of their careers with the company.




There are elements of doubt in all of the key witnesses statements. They naturally will not tell an entire tale of fiction or remember the absolute truth. It is up to us researchers to discover what was true and what clearly was not within all of their testimonies. This naturally comes down to personal choice. If someone avoids eye contact then there is an element of doubt in what they are saying is true. Same applies to the Inquiries. Every sentence has to be carefully examined to determine what is true and false and most importantly who had means, motive, and opportunity to defend, blame, and deceive the Inquiry, and why they would say one thing on public record for their managers to hear, and another thing outside the Inquiry.




Since there are so many inconsistencies in the key testimonies and gaps between events, all we can do is speculate as to what we personally think may have happened in a plausible rational manner.


.

Aaron you just keep repeating yourself over and over. Forget about Peuchen and Boxhall. I want to know:

- Why you think you can discredit the most important testimonies of that night?
- How you think constructing wild theories based on nothing is fine, defending them only with "we'll never know"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Aaron you just keep repeating yourself over and over. Forget about Peuchen and Boxhall. I want to know:

- Why you think you can discredit the most important testimonies of that night?
- How you think constructing wild theories based on nothing is fine, defending them only with "we'll never know"?

Perfectly acceptable to hypothesise what may have happened. There is nothing wild about using personal knowledge, experience and rational thought to determine what each witness might have been doing in a realistic manner in order to fill in the blanks in each witness's testimony and hypothesise reasons for their testimonial inconsistencies. Some members believe the Titanic turned south, others believe she turned north, and others believe she was heading towards Halifax for repairs. There is a hypothesis around every event and each of them can be equally plausible as a possible scenario because there are so many blanks to fill in.

We researchers examine and evaluate every available account and we base our trust in each account based on a specific list of guidelines e.g

- First we find a survivor account.

- If they witnessed a key event, then we seek out all of their accounts from every available source.

- Determine if the sources are reliable and note the inconsistencies between the various accounts and within the same accounts.

- Determine if the witness was in a position to know key facts first hand or if their knowledge came from second or third hand hearsay.

- Determine if there were witnesses who can corroborate what they said, and those witnesses would be examined as well.

- Hypothesise if the witness could potentially lose their careers if they stated the absolute truth and determine if they cared more about their careers than stating the absolute truth.

- Assess their account and note down what they avoided to mention, if they dodged questions, or denied key actions and events that they would have known about based on their location or duty roster.

- Determine if they claimed credit for actions they did not do and hypothesise why.

- Determine with a single or joint hypothesis with group discussions as to what the witness might have been doing and what their state of mind and health was at the time to determine their exact actions and perspective.

- Determine (if possible) the witness's language, tone of voice, and accent in case they were misheard when they gave their account. e.g. A survivor might whisper or come from a region where accents are very broad e.g.


The Commissioner at the British Inquiry:

"You do not speak so that I can hear you."
"You must bear in mind that I suffer from the infirmity of deafness."
"Do speak a little louder, please."
"Will you speak up. I do not hear you?"
"Do speak up. I did not hear the answer."
"Do not whisper."
"You must not whisper your answers."
"Speak up so that we can hear you."
"I am not following this."

The Attorney-General joined in:
"Neither am I, my Lord. I did not even hear it. Do you mind telling us again what you said then? I could not hear you. Try to speak up."

The Inquiry transcripts would say one thing, while the news reporters who were present at the Inquiry might hear and publish something slightly different and that variation might be important. The reporter might also note the witness's attitude, sarcasm, lack of emotion, or tone of voice which might also present clues during key moments of their testimony.

- Determine if there was an attempt to suppress survivors from testifying.

- Determine if the story itself was suppressed (communication from the Carpathia to shore) and an attempt to huddle the surviving crew (the key witnesses) back to England into the protective arms and relative safety of British officials.

- Determine if the witness was consistent over the years. e.g. Boxhall could remember trivial details with the same clarity and was consistent in his accounts in that respect which means his memory was sharp as a button, but when it came to the most important key matters (helm orders) he was incredibly inconsistent and this kind of specific inconsistency would make researchers focus on that very issue to determine exactly if the witness was trying to suppress the truth. e.g. It is easy to remember the truth over the years as our memories store important key events that are easy to reflect on and remember, and very difficult to remember a falsehood - hence Boxhall's contradictions regarding that one key event i.e. the helm orders before the collision.

- Determine what all the witnesses said using the above guidelines and combine the accounts to determine what really happened, by putting preference on witnesses deemed more reliable i.e. trustworthy.


As you can see above, interpreting a single survivor account is much more difficult than it looks.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 22, 2003
6,527
1,810
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
I have heard there was another account from Boxhall that was featured in a shipping magazine.
It was the 1959 Nautical Magazine article about Boxhall's lecture that deals with his movements at the time of the collision:
"When the Titanic struck, they were doing about 22 ½ knots. He had done a tour of the decks and had just looked into his cabin when he heard the lookout sound three bells. He immediately went out on deck again, and a few minutes later, at about 10.40 p.m., when the ship struck, he felt no more than a slight tremor."

The lecture was given at the Red House Museum, Christchurch (Hants), 1959, and published in Nautical Magazine in May and June 1959.
So here is a 4th version of what he was doing when the 3 bells were struck.

And about Boxhall's distress position:
"The captain then told him that the position that had been sent out was the 8 p.m. dead reckoning one, and asked how it compared with the 7.30 p.m. star position, and was told that this showed the ship to be ahead of the D.R. position. Thereupon he [Smith] gave orders that this should be given to the wireless operator for transmission. And that, explained Commander Boxhall, was why the Carpathia received two positions." Notice that this is essentially the same explanation Boxhall gave in his 1962 broadcast, claiming the ship was AHEAD of the DR, not behind it. The same article also quoted Boxhall as saying:
"I worked on the 7.30 position to 11.46 on speed and course."

About what Julian said about Boxhall and Groves:
elevating their own importance in the disaster after the event
In that 1959 interview Boxhall claimed that after he came back from inspecting the flooding in the mail room and reporting what he saw to Smith: "On hearing his report the captain ordered him to call out all hands and prepare the boats for lowering." According to Lightoller, it was Wilde who ordered all hands to be called.

I believe Boxhall was chosen to support the narrative that the order hard a-starboard was given and that the engines were reversed full speed astern, and that is why Boxhall made no mention of the only real order I believe was given 'hard a-port' because it was well established in the Inquiry that the iceberg struck their starboard bow and it would not look good in the novice eyes of the Inquiry if Boxhall had stated that the helmsman had turned right and not left. Murdoch wanted to swing their stern clear of the iceberg 'after' they had collided, but that would mean admitting that they were too late to avoid it and were only acting on impulse after the collision to limit the damage and swing the stern away.

I disagree about there not being a hard-astarboard order. That would mean collusion by Fleet, Lee and Hichens about the ship turning to port before she struck. Fleet saw it turn from 1 to 2 points before she struck. Lee didn't quantify it but said she veered to port after Fleet hung up the phone and speculated that the helm must have been put hard-astarboard. Hichens said he saw the compass go south of west before she struck. In any event, the ship struck the berg because it was seen too late to avoid. Hichen thought the impact came about 1/2 minute after the 3 bells. Fleet said he thought he was at the phone about 1/2 minute. What doesn't fit is the timing of Boxhall which doesn't allow for any phone call at all. I also don't think the Chapin on Carpathia was smart enough to invent the scenario that was told to him by Hichens. Even Ismay said something to Sen. Smith during the Senate investigation which seems to go unnoticed by many researchers:

Senator SMITH. You remember, I think, the statement of the wheelman, Hichens, that the last thing he did before striking the iceberg was to so turn his wheel as to avoid contact directly with the bow, the extreme bow?
Mr. ISMAY. Yes, sir.
Senator SMITH. Do you recall that?
Mr. ISMAY. I think he said he was told "Hard aport," and then "Hard astarboard," if I remember rightly.
Senator SMITH. And then that threw the vessel -
Mr. Ismay (interposing). He wanted to throw his quarter up.

Islay got his details backwards, but it seems he heard there were two helm orders. At the inquiries Hichens only talked about the first order, so it'snot clear where Ismay may have heard about two orders being given. Maybe while on Carpathia, when Hichens was being more talkative?
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,390
675
188
South Wales UK
At the inquiries Hichens only talked about the first order, so it'snot clear where Ismay may have heard about two orders being given. Maybe while on Carpathia, when Hichens was being more talkative?

Hi Sam!

What an interesting scenario on Carpathia!

Ismay sedated with morphine, and being completely 'out of it! Except his wireless messages!

Fred Fleet being very angry about everything and then later on (was it the Cedric) wanting to punch the living daylights out of Hichens.

The Chapin report quoted by Ioannis clearly is not Hichens as quoted or in the vernacular or colloquial. Didn't Hichens do a newspaper report when he got to the USA?

I, for myself, wouldn't regard the Chaplin account in respect of Hichens as any reliable evidence that Titanic ported (went 'left hand down a bit' - Jim will no doubt recall the reference as will many others) then starboarded - turned right. And ended up heading north.

The peculiar thing - and it is quite significant - is that Boxhall in every account he gave (unless I am mistaken) is for Titanic continuing to have a westward heading. Personally I think this may have been a half baked plan not to incriminate another IMM ship - The Californian - as the ship whose lights were seen nearby.

Boxhall would have known very well where Captain Lord stated his ship was if he had read the Boston Press newspapers and the New York papers that repeated Captain Lord's reports. The IMM head office in New York would also have a lot of wireless info about The Californian via Olympic and the Hydrographic report from The Californian?

Boxhall's evidence at the USA Inquiry was delayed due to pleurisy (apparently). He was clearly more 'pliable' than Fleet and Hichens etc from the lower ranks.

Cheers,

Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
There are two questions which have never been properly addressed on this thread or anywhere else for that matter.

1. If there was unusual visibility, it worked both ways. That being so, why was it that 2nd Officer Stone only saw 7 "rockets"? Was it because only 7 were fired?

2. For the duration of 6 of the 7 clearly identified "rockets" being observed, Californian was showing her green side light and two white masthead lights. Why was not green the predominant colour of sidelight sightings by survivors in lifeboats?
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,390
675
188
South Wales UK
Another interesting point is that the day Captain Lord gave evidence at the USA Inquiry he was seated next to Franklin of the IMM in the ante room. They had a decent chat. The other person present was Ismay who remained singularly untalkative.

(See Captain Lord's 1961 taped recorded transcripts).

Cheers,

Julian
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hi Sam!

What an interesting scenario on Carpathia!

Ismay sedated with morphine, and being completely 'out of it! Except his wireless messages!

Fred Fleet being very angry about everything and then later on (was it the Cedric) wanting to punch the living daylights out of Hichens.

The Chapin report quoted by Ioannis clearly is not Hichens as quoted or in the vernacular or colloquial. Didn't Hichens do a newspaper report when he got to the USA?

I, for myself, wouldn't regard the Chaplin account in respect of Hichens as any reliable evidence that Titanic ported (went 'left hand down a bit' - Jim will no doubt recall the reference as will many others) then starboarded - turned right. And ended up heading north.

The peculiar thing - and it is quite significant - is that Boxhall in every account he gave (unless I am mistaken) is for Titanic continuing to have a westward heading. Personally I think this may have been a half baked plan not to incriminate another IMM ship - The Californian - as the ship whose lights were seen nearby.

Boxhall would have known very well where Captain Lord stated his ship was if he had read the Boston Press newspapers and the New York papers that repeated Captain Lord's reports. The IMM head office in New York would also have a lot of wireless info about The Californian via Olympic and the Hydrographic report from The Californian?

Boxhall's evidence at the USA Inquiry was delayed due to pleurisy (apparently). He was clearly more 'pliable' than Fleet and Hichens etc from the lower ranks.

Cheers,

Julian
Hello Julian.

If Boxhall knew where Californian was relative to the Titanic, then since Boxhall thought Titanic was 12 + miles west of where she really was, then to Boxhall, Californian would have been NNE of the sinking Titanic. This means that for Californian to be on Titanic's port bow, the latter would need to have been pointing NE, not NW. Keep in mind, Lord had to steer SSW to go in the direction of Boxhall's CQD position.

If we are going to try and think like Boxhall, we must think from his time and perspective, not from the base date of 2019.
Incidentally, 3rd officer Pitman also thought Titanic was pointing about westward./
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
735
208
England
went 'left hand down a bit' - Jim will no doubt recall the reference as will many others)

Don't start that.

There will be a 24 page thread debating whether the Chief shouted "Everybody down !" just before impact and would Leading Seaman "Taffy" Goldstein have been able to spot the Berg had he been on watch? :D

(as you may have guessed, I'm a massive fan of the reference)
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,390
675
188
South Wales UK
Hi Jim,

The point I was getting at was if Titanic was heading westwards after the collision, and the ship whose lights were seen off the port bow, then 2 points off the port bow, as Boxhall described, then clearly it was not The Californian he was identifying. The Californian was clearly to the northwards.

'Eureka!' I hear you exclaim!

But is that not what Boxhall wanted to convey? And he still did this in 1962 in the BBC radio interview.

Rostron was pretty much of the same view in wanting to not implicate poor old Captain Lord. In his 4th June 1912 affidavit he describes seeing at 5 am a 4 masted single funneled steamer to the north (plus another 2 masted steamer) perhaps 7-8 miles distant, but states he did not see The Californian till much later at 8 am and then 5-6 miles distant. (Bisset says 1 mile away at 8am). Then we have the correspondence with Captain Lord and Rostron. Rostron, an upright Christian Gentleman once again refuses to implicate The Californian, as he did at both Inquiries. The clue is in Rostron's comment in the correspondence about sympathising with Captain Lord not being called. In this correspondence one can take the view he tactfully avoids stating the blindingly obvious.

Barnett, Dean, and Bisset, had told Rostron at the time they had seen The Californian very early that morning. If I have read p.307 of TSTSS (Reade) correctly, Dean was Lightoller's best man at his wedding so the 2 were clearly good friends. Lightoller's 1935 book, and 1936 BBC radio interview clearly implicated The Californian. And one can speculate what Dean told Lightoller subsequently to change his mind.

You can take all of this both ways; either The Californian wasn't the ship seen by Boxhall and Rostron, or it was and they were both lying and trying their best to help out a fellow Captain for whom they both felt, perhaps for different motives, he should not be implicated and all that would entail.

Cheers,

Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

T Maltin

Member
Dec 27, 2018
139
10
63
Hello Tim.

Allow me to point out a few things. First of all:
"I was going to hard-a-port round it but she was too close. I could not do any more. " This the full statement made by Boxhall concerning what he heard Murdoch tell Captain Smith. Ergo, Murdoch did not carry out his intention.

Hi Jim, I dealt with this in a previous answer on this thread: I think Murdoch did carry out his intention to port around the berg, but she hit because she was too close.

The position of the first point of contact damage, 50 feet from the stem on the starboard side, tells us that Titanic had barely had time to move off her original course before she hit the iceberg. She did not turn into it. Had she done so, she would have hit it head-on.

She only turned into the berg after her stem had swung away initially, the turning away was the effect of the hard a starboard order and the later turning into the berg was the effect of the hard a port order.

When a ship traveling at speed hits an immovable object such as a quay knuckle or mooring dolphin or in this case, an iceberg, she does 2 things... pivots toward the point of contact and bounces off it. Try this: Walk in a straight line through a doorway. As you do so, keep right of center so that your right shoulder makes a brushing contact with the door post as you pass through. The imagine you are Titanic brushing past an iceberg with your starboard bow. You will find that you direction momentarily alters toward the right.

I'm sure you know that Groves was the Third, not Second officer of the Californian. However, what you obviously do not know is that Groves first saw a ship to the south - not to the eastward - of the Californian at 11-10 pm when it was about 12 miles away. It continued to approach and finally stopped 30 minutes later when 6 miles away. Therefore it covered 6 miles in 30 minutes and was making 12 knots. Titanic was making 22.5 knots.

Groves was watching Titanic approach on her westerly course, which ran more or less parallel with Californian's intended westerly course, but approximately 10 miles to the south of it. Titanic time was about 12 minutes ahead of Californian time that night. Groves first noticed Titanic approaching at about 11.07pm Titanic time that night.

Here's more info that rubbishes the Titanic and Californian in sight of each other nonsense.

Jim, there were no other ships east of the ice barrier and south of Californian that night, apart from Titanic and Carpathia.

At 11-10 pm on Californian, it would have been 11-22 pm on Titanic. If there was no clock change aboard the latter, she had about 10.5 miles to run on a course of about 265 True before she met her fate at 11-40 pm. Right?

Titanic time was about 12 minutes ahead of Californian time that night. Groves first noticed Titanic approaching at about 11.07pm Titanic time that night.

The ship stopped nearby to the Californian was reported as bearing South East, distant about 5 miles. Now have a look at the following sketch which I have drawn to scale.

She was bearing SE, but she was about 10 miles away, not 5 as groves mistakenly estimated.

View attachment 43821 As you can plainly see, Groves did not see a ship approaching from the eastward as he would have done had that ship been Titanic.
Additionally, If the ship near to the Californian was Titanic. then at 11-10 pm, it would have been no less than 14 miles away. Not only that, but as the separation distance increases, there comes a point where Titanic's lights could not have been seen at 11-10 pm

Then we have the evidence of Captain Lord backed by his wireless man.

Lord saw his ship at least 15 minutes before Groves saw his. That's 45 minutes before the ship Groves saw, stopped 6 miles away.
At 10-55 pm on Californian, Titanic would have had at least 35 minutes to run before impact. This would have placed her 17 miles away from Californian. There is no way that Lord, as he claimed, saw any vessel "coming along" at that time and at that range. To even suggest so is utter nonsense.

Lord first saw Titanic at 10.42pm Titanic time, when she was at least 22 miles away from Californian.

I suspect the foregoing was the reason why the MAIB re-appraisal surveyor of the evidence decided :
"More probably, in my view, the ship seen by CALIFORNIAN was another, unidentified, vessel. Whether the ship seen during the later stages of the tragedy by TITANIC was this third ship, becoming visible to her and then disappearing as she sought a break in the ice field, or a fourth vessel is a matter of speculation outside the scope of this reappraisal".

As I pointed out in my book, *both* investigators were *half* right! There *was* abnormal refraction playing a part that night, but Californian *was* in fact only about 10-12miles NE of Titanic, having been set further south in the Labrador current since noon than she calculated, as her noon sighting was taken just before she entered the influence of the Labrador current, so she did not adjust properly in her DR for the 10 miles southerly set at one knot per hour of the Labrador current which Californian was in for 10 hours since soon after noon.

Cheers!

You are very welcome Jim. Best wishes, Tim
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Similar threads