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.
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!
Hello Julian.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.
I look forward to reading your book when it comes out then Aaron
I have to say, Julian that George Behe article simply perpetuates the unconfirmed allegation that Murdoch took his own life.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.
I couldn't agree more with the gist of this comment.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.
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.
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.another IMM ship - The Californian
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.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.
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.Lord first saw Titanic at 10.42pm Titanic time, when she was at least 22 miles away from Californian.
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.'Can now see Carpathia [rescuing the lifeboats].
Including God himself.No one is above criticism whatever status of divinity they are awarded by their followers.
So there are people who lie, and then there are people who think they are telling the truth. So what's new?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.
More Aaron. What about those who observed events and were below in the engine and boiler rooms?There were only 5 key witnesses.
Not true. There might be differences in details between Fleet, Lee and Hichens, but they essentially support each other.So there is no basic narrative to follow because none of them corroborated each other's story.
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.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.