Superior mirage and the Californian


A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Hi Ioannis,

With the greatest of respect to you as a well known acknowledged Titanic expert, that is a bit rich.

No one - especially me - has ever suggested Hichens account to Chapin was dictated by Lightoller or Boxhall.

We have what Hichens said under oath at the Inquiry. And we also know about his behaviour in the lifeboat drinking from a flask of alcohol. We know about his subsequent life, and it is not a happy life.

I don't know why you are so captivated or add so much importance to the Chapin report! It was clearly contrived. Why, and who said what to who I don't know, but clearly the Chapin report wasn't an accurate account of what Hichens recalled of that fateful night.

Why you cannot understand this bemuses me!

I'm off to bed.

Cheers,

Julian


I think Ioannis is referring to my post [HASHTAG]#495[/HASHTAG] when I said:

"That quote (Chapins) contradicts what he told the Inquiry and what the other witnesses described. For a start the quote doesn't come from Hichens himself, but rather, a second hand account from a second or even third party (if it was edited and made sensational for the newspaper publications we will never know, or taken from the lips of Boxhall or Lightoller who may have paraphrased what Hichens did with their own version to Chapin with the expectation that Chapin would publish the account they wanted him to publish and not what actually happened.)"

I was stating a hypothesis that the account could have come from anyone and could have been attributed to Hichens and not come directly from Hichens e.g. Lightoller spoke to Fleet and wanted to know what happened, and it was common talk (according to Mrs. Crosby) what Fleet was saying regarding the collision. So there is good reason to believe that Chapin did not speak directly to Hichens but instead received rumours and hearsay from various survivors all over the Carpathia, and one or two statements could have come directly or indirectly from the surviving officers who would be putting the passengers at ease and telling them what they wanted them to know, and Chapin may have picked this up and attributed all of the rumours and partial statements made, combined them, and attributed the story to Hichens and created the impression that it was a quote from Hichens himself.

e.g.

The survivors spot Lightoller in the crowd aboard the Carpathia. They approach him in groups and demand to know what happened. They hear Fleet saying one thing and Hichens saying another. Lightoller has already spoken to the key witnesses. He knows what really happened. He tells them what Fleet and Hichens did i.e. Tells them what he wants them to know to put their minds at ease so that the crowd does not become an angry mob.

lightoller.png


Mr. Chapin is curious and talks to the crowd of survivors, picking up information from one person to the next. He now has a a page of information which he attributes to Hichens and now we have an alleged account from Hichens on the Carpathia.

Tricks of the trade in journalism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mikael K

Member
Nov 3, 2017
36
32
48
Hi Mikael,

Various forum members promote their own ideas. Some are bunkam, some are 'nuts', and some are extremely well researched. Some of us post to stimulate debate and as a result all sorts of new ideas and sources are discussed.

I spent 13 years dealing with people who deliberately lied in court cases, and conversely people who genuinely thought they witnessed something and gave honest evidence on oath but were wrong in their memory/recollection.

When you get to the stage of actually doing your own research and presenting this to the forum, rather than just slagging off Aaron, then we can assess your own 'professional historian' credentials!

Cheers,

Julian

Ignoring facts (like Aaron does) is not some kind of interesting new theory. It is bad research. Naturally people lie under oath, but one cannot simply pick and choose from a century old source material which testimonies one wishes to believe just so that ones theories will hold up. Finally, when I say "professional" I mean trained, as in it is my profession, and no I don't need random people on the internet verifying what I do. I believe universities and peer reviewed journals do a better job.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I include and examine every available source. No exceptions. I am not "ignoring facts". You began post [HASHTAG]#510[/HASHTAG] with "Forget about Peuchen and Boxhall." I will not ignore their testimonies. They were two important survivors who gave important testimonies. They can't be forgotten as you suggest. When I hear people speak of universities as sanctuaries that do a great job in providing the truth, be afraid. It is common knowledge around the world that they do more harm than good when seeking the truth.

universities.png


And be very concerned if you put your faith in 'peer reviewed' journals. They accept shoddy work that suits their agenda. e.g.

peer1.png


I recommend you do your own independent research as I and others have done regarding the Titanic sinking. Only then will you truly find 'enlightenment' and have a better understanding of the truth. Don't put your faith in what a university or 'peer reviewed' journal says. You need to do it yourself as I and other's have done over many years of studying the subject at great expense of time, money, and resources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mikael K

Member
Nov 3, 2017
36
32
48
Ok, this is getting out of hand now. You are promoting anti-intellectual propaganda and bashing our academic institutions now? Wow. Don't tell other people how to do their job when you clearly have no clue about what you're talking about. You really think trained historians don't do independent research? Do you know what universities do? Do you know why people submit actual papers to academic journals? You dabble in conspiracy theories yet want to talk about "truth" and "enlightenment"? At least, you finally reveal your complete ignorance.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
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
Hello Julian.

Methinks you have spent too much time in bad company. Whatever happened to "innocence before guilt?"
But to the point:

Rostron gave his evidence on Day 1 of the US inquiry. That was April 19., 1912, the very same day that the Californian arrived at Boston and long before Rostron or any of his crew had any reason to support or undermine the evidence of Captain Lord. That same day, Rostron mentioned Californian without being prompted or led. He said "At 8 o'clock in the morning he hove in sight." This means he first sighted her at that time.
At the UK Inquiry he elaborated on that evidence by stating "The first time that I saw the 'Californian' was at about eight o'clock on the morning of 15th April. ' He did not change his evidence at all. He finished that bit of evidence with: " She was then about five to six miles distant, bearing W.S.W. true, and steaming towards the 'Carpathia."
The evidence above can be corroborated from 3 different sources. Whereas the romantic attention-seeking nonsense uttered by Barnet Dean and Bisset cannot. If you wish to see the corroborative evidence, I can easily provide it. Two of the sources had no reason to love Lord.

Cheers!

 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I look forward to reading your book when it comes out then Aaron

Have no desire to write a book because I continually find new accounts and evidence as the years go by, and my conclusions based on what I have researched can change as freely as the wind. I am always open minded to new leads and possibilities when they arise.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
You told me to "Forget about Peuchen and Boxhall." and then you call me ignorant. The hypocrisy. I told you to not put your eggs in one basket by putting your faith in what the universities and peers say because they are notoriously biased. Don't follow the crowd. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Don't fear indifference.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Jul 4, 2000
6,367
390
433
Moderator's hat on':

Tone it down, folks: it's getting far too personal. Address substance, not personality.

Moderator's hat off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Jim Currie

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

I don't have George Behe's article that I mentioned above, but here is an example of George's work

First Officer Murdoch and the 'Dalbeattie Defense'

You can see that Aaron's approach is not really that far from George's approach.

We constantly have to re-evaluate things. At one point on this forum in the early days George Behe played a sort of 'devils advocate' in respect of Captain Gambell's newspaper report (The Times 22nd April 1912). Captain Gambell was Captain of The Virginian, and as well as stating The Californian gave her position as 17 miles away from the Titanic CQD position, then at 6.10am stated the wireless message from The Californian 'Can now see Carpathia [rescuing the lifeboats]. This is something Leslie Reade made great play of in his book p.130-132, despite a small footnote on p.130 that The Virginian's PV was incomplete.

In fact there was a nearly 6 hour gap that covered the above time in The Virginian's PV, despite The Virginian having 2 wireless operators.

Gambell was reading from the Marconi service message forms/chits which were in NYTime!

When George Behe got a copy of The Virginian's PV, all this became clear.

But in Paul Lee's book he, for some inexplicable reason, follows the Leslie Reade faulty analysis!

It is only by examining these things (as I suggest that Aaron does) that these errors are highlighted.

Cheers,

Julian
I have to say, Julian that George Behe article simply perpetuates the unconfirmed allegation that Murdoch took his own life.
Other than the fact that if a rumour is started, there is no shortage of those who would perpetuate it, such an exercise, however eloquently penned,
has little to do with discovering the true story of the Titanic disaster. It encourages us to accept hearsay and 3rd hand evidence and to ignore the evidence of actual witnesses to an event.
If we carefully read the evidence of 2nd Officer Lightoller as well as that of young Bride and LampTrimmer Hemmings, it seems that in the last moment before the bridge went under, Murdoch seems to have been struggling to re-use an emergency boat tackle to launch a collapsible then gave up and decided to shoot himself. If so, he must have shot himself with a water pistol.:rolleyes:


I suggest to you and others that unlike the legal approach - where it seems to us mere mortals that the letter of the Law is more important than Justice - the first duty of every History Detective should be to discover the truth. Speculation based on a Eureka moment or interpretation of ill-informed 3rd parties simply muddies the waters Going into print with it is even less helpful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Julian Atkins

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

I very carefully avoided making any judgement of George Behe's article, and what happened to Murdoch is not something I have any view on, or any interest in.

I posted the link simply as an example of George Behe's approach to research in the absence of having his THS journal article that I mentioned previously.

I also don't draw the same inferences you do from George Behe's approach in the link that I provided, though in my post you quoted I did explicitly point out a mistake George Behe, and Leslie Reade, and Paul Lee all made in respect of Captain Gambell's newspaper report of 22nd April 1912.

I discounted/dismissed a vital part of Leslie Reade's case against Captain Lord.

I can't be more objective than that, surely?!

Cheers,

Julian
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
735
208
England
When Albert Einstein couldn't understand all the data he was seeing he quite literally made up a figure to make it all fit. It took around 20 years for someone to prove it wrong. Einstein called it his greatest blunder.

Quoting articles on left wing bias in universities from sources "well known for their unbiased reports" such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph is as ironic as stating that peer review is irrelevant and biased when posting regularly on an open forum where you are offering the content of your posts for peer review in the hope of gaining support for your ideas.
 
Nov 14, 2005
2,310
1,205
308
I include and examine every available source. No exceptions. I am not "ignoring facts". You began post [HASHTAG]#510[/HASHTAG] with "Forget about Peuchen and Boxhall." I will not ignore their testimonies. They were two important survivors who gave important testimonies. They can't be forgotten as you suggest. When I hear people speak of universities as sanctuaries that do a great job in providing the truth, be afraid. It is common knowledge around the world that they do more harm than good when seeking the truth.

View attachment 43886

And be very concerned if you put your faith in 'peer reviewed' journals. They accept shoddy work that suits their agenda. e.g.

View attachment 43887

I recommend you do your own independent research as I and others have done regarding the Titanic sinking. Only then will you truly find 'enlightenment' and have a better understanding of the truth. Don't put your faith in what a university or 'peer reviewed' journal says. You need to do it yourself as I and other's have done over many years of studying the subject at great expense of time, money, and resources.
I couldn't agree more with the gist of this comment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mikael K

Member
Nov 3, 2017
36
32
48
You told me to "Forget about Peuchen and Boxhall." and then you call me ignorant. The hypocrisy. I told you to not put your eggs in one basket by putting your faith in what the universities and peers say because they are notoriously biased. Don't follow the crowd. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Don't fear indifference.


.

Look, I as trying to do you a favor by explaining what research means. You ignored that. Let me repeat myself: do not - ever - ignore primary testimonies (in this case Fleet, Lee and Hichens) in favour of rumours and hearsay. That was all, hence my remark about Peuchen and Boxhall. I was trying to point you in the right direction. This is basic stuff: a guy makes a phone call, his mate who is standing beside him sees him making the call. A third guy who is present at the location where the call is received confirms the call went through. Why are you denying this reality? No other testimonies by people who weren't present can change these facts. Get it?

It is sad to see amateurs having so little regard for knowledge and research. Universities and journals don't "say" anything - do you really think they are "saying" something about the Titanic? They are merely used as platforms for serious scholars who do their independent research. You don't have to be an academic to be a historian, but you have to base your research on fact and objectivity which is something you fail to do as witnessed by the criticism directed at you by others in this thread. Aaron a good researcher accepts criticism and learns from his mistakes - I suggest you do that too.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
People disagree with each other all the time. When they disagree with something I have posted I point them in the right direction and explain my reasons fully. I take criticism very well and am perfectly happy to be corrected, but when I receive blatant personal attacks which do absolutely nothing to convince me they are right, the moderator steps in and tells them to stop it. There is always a difference in opinion as each of us speculate what happened. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth. The key witnesses contradicted themselves over an important matter at the Inquiry. Other witnesses who testified also contradict what the key witnesses said. This makes their evidence questionable. There are strong reasons to indicate the Inquiry was not interested in disclosing the truth. There are strong reasons to believe the truth was suppressed. We have other survivors who spoke to and heard directly from the key witnesses and got a different story. So there is a strong indication that the phone was not answered. That is the conclusion I drew to, and still do.

There is so much evidence and sources to explore. e.g. When the lookouts went off duty and the next watch went up the crows nest to take over, they tried to phone the bridge and they were ignored as well.

You are free to believe Hichens, Fleet, and Lee's testimony, and try to makes sense out of their contradictions, shuffle it about and make sense out of it, and dismiss everything else that was spoken by the other witnesses inside and outside the Inquiry, including Boxhall and Peuchen, and you are free to do so, but I prefer to examine 'all' available evidence with no exceptions and come to my own conclusions.



.
 

Thomas C.

Member
Sep 6, 2017
90
29
48
I was watching this thread from the beggining and I would like to say a few words.

Many people are accusing Aaron's theory as being wrong. The Aaron's version of the story is not wrong.

Olliver
''When I was doing this bit of duty I heard three bells rung up in the crow's nest. ... I had just performed an errand and was entering the bridge when the collision occurred.''


To get from the compass platform to the bridge, human would have to walk for about 50 seconds.

Hichens
''All went along very well until 20 minutes to 12, when three gongs came from the lookout, and immediately afterwards a report on the telephone, "Iceberg right ahead." The chief officer rushed from the wing to the bridge. ... He rushed to the engines. I heard the telegraph bell ring; also give the order "Hard astarboard.'' ... The sixth officer repeated the order, "The helm is hard astarboard, sir." But, during the time, she was crushing the ice, or we could hear the grinding noise along the ship's bottom.''

Dillon
3715. Did you feel the shock when the ship struck?
- Slightly.
3716. And shortly before that had the telegraph rung?
- Yes.
3717. Can you say at all how long before she struck that was?
- Two seconds.

Barrett
1860. Now just tell us what happened that you noticed?
- There is like a clock rigged up in the stokehold and a red light goes up when the ship is supposed to stop. ... This red light came up. I am the man in charge of the watch, and I called out, "Shut all dampers."
1866. What was the next thing that happened?
- The crash came before we had them all shut.

My conlusion is very simply. Titanic's crew spotted an iceberg about 1 minute before impact. However 1st officer, didn't give any order, until seconds before impact. Any helm or engine order had no effect on ship's course and speed before coliision.

I came to the same conlusion as Aaron. The lookouts warned the bridge about the iceberg. Bridge didn't take any actions (in time) to avoid the iceberg.

This conclusion is based on the inquiry from 1912. This is the same inquiry, which according to Aaron, tried to cheat the public opinion. This idea is completely wrong.
People would not be able to do something like that. Why nobody from the Titanic's crew never said something like that. ''The inquiry lied. They told us to lie. The truth is different.'' Nobody.

Why?

Because they told what they known. The inquiry had only 3 months to give a final report. Only 3 months and many questions without answers. Where is the wreck of the ship? Did the mystery ship was the Californian? Did ship broke in half? Did officer commit suicide? Why Titanic ignored the ice warnings? Why the lifeboats were only partially full? Today we know were the wreck is. We have simulations, detailed plans, and experts. Accusing the inquiry about a conspiracy, only because they came to the different conclusion in 3 months, than you in many years, is just
misunderstanding of the human psyche.

The inquiry was not wrong, and not right. They just came to the wrong conclusion. Absolutely, nothing, more.

About the case of the phone call and the helm order. In a view of the whole disaster, it is NOT important. As I wrote before they had no effect on collsion. It is only a matter of details. If someone wants to get to know that night in every detail, it will take him a lot of time. Maybe a whole life. :D
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
This thread is to do with what it says on the can"
Superior mirage and the Californian
Discussion in 'Distance and Bearing' started by DarrenC, Dec 27, 2018.

A great deal of time has been spent arguing about events before Titanic hit the iceberg. Only one event is missing from that period and that is, the sighting of the SS Californian about 4 points on Titanic's starboard bow before impact.
If there was any abnormal refraction and/or Californian was visible after Titanic stopped, then Californian would have been standing out like a sore thumb before the lookouts saw the iceberg and the Crow's nest bell would have been sounded once...DING!

Then we have the first question which has never been answered:

Given that the rudder started to lose efficiency the moment the ship's engines started to slow down and the speed started to drop due to a combination of contact and turning motion ...how was it possible for a reverse helm order given at least 30 seconds after the first one, able to check the leftward swing of the bow and start it turning back to the right?
While of little significance under normal circumstances, the fact that Titanic's rudder was slightly undersized would possibly be detrimental to its efficient use in extreme conditions.

Bottom line? How was it possible for the stopped Californian to suddenly appear ahead of the stopped Titanic after a delay of more than 20 minutes...i.e. after the latter had been stopped for more than 20 minutes?
Perhaps the only answer is that the mythical mirage, like the mythical south setting current, affected selected vessels selectively.

I know the arguments are boring and not the least bit gossipy or intriguing. However, without satisfactory answers, the idea that Californian and Titanic were in sight of each other for whatever reason or reasons, is simply impossible!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 22, 2003
6,527
1,811
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
another IMM ship - The Californian
The Californian was not an IMM ship and certainly under the IMM Ship's Rules and Uniform Regulations that were in effect at the time. Leyland Line was partially owned by IMM, who had controlling interest, but Leland had her own management and rules that were being followed.
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.
Nonsense Tim. If she was swinging to the right under hard-aport the berg would not have stayed along the starboard side as vessel continued going forward.depositing ice through several open ports and getting the windows on the Cafe Parisian wet. It could not have passed within 10 ft of the strn as witnessed by QM Rowe.
Lord first saw Titanic at 10.42pm Titanic time, when she was at least 22 miles away from Californian.
I can easily prove that if Titanic was seen by Lord when she was 22 miles away heading 266°T and one hour before the collision, then she would have been 0 miles away at 11:40 and the collision would have been with Californian, not an iceberg.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,527
1,811
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
'Can now see Carpathia [rescuing the lifeboats].
The truth about that request and response from Carpathia is that it did not happen at 6:10am Virginian time. It happened ad 6:10am NY time which was 8:00am on Californian. At that time, californian was 5-6 miles from Carpathia and received information about Titanic by signaling flags.
No one is above criticism whatever status of divinity they are awarded by their followers.
Including God himself.
I spent 13 years dealing with people who deliberately lied in court cases, and conversely people who genuinely thought they witnessed something and gave honest evidence on oath but were wrong in their memory/recollection.
So there are people who lie, and then there are people who think they are telling the truth. So what's new?
There were only 5 key witnesses.
More Aaron. What about those who observed events and were below in the engine and boiler rooms?
So there is no basic narrative to follow because none of them corroborated each other's story.
Not true. There might be differences in details between Fleet, Lee and Hichens, but they essentially support each other.
It was clearly contrived. Why, and who said what to who I don't know, but clearly the Chapin report wasn't an accurate account of what Hichens recalled of that fateful night.
You have no way of knowing that. It was a second hand report that contains information that I doubt could have been simply fabricated by Chapin. Hichens apparently was a very talkative person. He gave more information than what was directly asked of him during the inquires. But like most everyone else, when pressed, his story changed a bit in the details, particularly with regard how long after receiving the hard-astarboard helm order did the ship strike the berg.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Similar threads