Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="T Maltin, post: 404141, member: 166865"] Hi Julian, Thank you for your comments above. Firstly, I’m not too worried about the two masthead light thing. It could have been an error or caused by atmospheric conditions but, as you say, it was unquestionably Titanic that Californian saw approaching and coming to a stop that night. As regards Titanic showing her port light, this is consistent with Titanic porting about the berg at collision - as we know she ended up heading almost directly towards Californian. I also agree with you re taking into account all the evidence and I find Gill is very interesting on this point also, as he describes just catching the rockets “as they were dying” and talks about the strange horizon that night. Bisset on the approaching Carpathia also talks about the strange horizon that night. As does Symons on Titanic and of course Beesley re his “stars being cut in two on the horizon” - ‘doubling’ is what this is known as, and it *could* explain Groves’ two masthead lights. Of course the flat-topped smoke observed by another of the first class passengers as Titanic is sinking is strong evidence of the thermal inversion itself. I should point out that I am more interested in the fact that a strong thermal inversion was present at Titanic’s crash site than any miraging effect it may have had at the horizon. Although several logbooks from nearby ships mention seeing “miraging” and “refraction at the horizon” in that ice region of the Atlantic in April 1912 - this is often accompanied by descriptions of the extraordinary bright stars. The most interesting question as you say is why on Earth did Lord not come up and have a look. I wonder if he did indeed have a sneak peak but his mind was made up from the start: his orders were not to go into ice; he had seen the ice and been frightened by it when he came to his emergency stop against the field ice; he simply determined that the wiser course of action was to wait a few hours until daylight, before investigating what he did not believe to be the Titanic in distress. Damning with hindsight, but without the prior knowledge of that catastrophe perhaps an understandable and even sensible conclusion! I think fear had more to do with it than callousness. Finally, on your point about Titanic’s officers not mentioning the slight refraction at the horizon, I believe this is because they were fending off a negligence law suit: any acknowledgment of any strange visibility would have made them appear guilty for proceeding full speed through the ice region. Lightoller therefore did not complicate his account with it, especially in view of the fact that it was truly also one of the clearest nights in history! And of course Lord would not acknowledge that abnormal refraction was present that night as it would blow his theory that he could not have been seen, or have seen Titanic at the range he was away - he deceitfully claimed he was at least 20 miles away. Finally miraging and abnormal refraction were well known to all master mariners in 1912. Thanks for all keeping the tone friendly here. Let’s stick to that on this thread as I am writing these replies without referring to full detail, in order to make - I hope - some useful points without us all getting deeply bogged down in the vital minutiae...yet! Thanks and my more detailed book on this called “A very deceiving night” can be downloaded as an ebook via [URL="http://www.titanic-thetruth.com"]www.titanic-thetruth.com[/URL] Inevitably my conclusions have moved on quite a bit since I wrote that book but it really is a must for anyone really interested in the Californian Incident and indeed why the whole tragedy occurred. Please keep the questions coming and I will do my best to answer as soon as poss and certainly within a few days each time. Thank you all, Tim [/QUOTE]

Verification: I which year did the Titanic sail?

Top Bottom