Search titles only
Search titles only
Search titles only
Search titles only
Install the app
New media comments
Reply to thread
RMS Titanic in detail
Ships that may have stood still
Distance and Bearing
Superior mirage and the Californian
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
[QUOTE="T Maltin, post: 404212, member: 166865"] MZ: Why are using caps and bolds? TM: Many apologies Mila, I was only using CAPS because I have not yet worked out how to do what everybody else does here and paste in your text and then add my comments. Because I have not worked out how to do that I used CAPS so that you (and others) could easily tell my comments apart from your text. Perhaps you or another could instruct me how to do it as you did above, so it is clearer. Anyway as you will see I have stopped caps now as I understand it appears rude and angry - I assure you I am neither! Thank you (The bold was already bold in my source document I copied it from, where I had emboldened things for my own notes - for speed I did not remove bold which was already in the document I was pasting from). For now I am using MZ and TM to keep it clear whilst avoiding caps, until I learn the technique. MZ: You take some parts of the haze'sdescription provided by different witnesses and make your own haze that suits your purposes. It is not what researchers do. TM: I was only quoting above the few bits which make the point I was making best (and which I had to hand). Of course there are many inconsistencies in the testimony and I don't think I should be marked down for not going into them all when making each point. I have weighed all the testimony up very carefully over the six years it took me to research my book to reach the conclusions I have reached. I came to them from an open mind. In fact i was trying to prove the Lord was really 20 miles away...but the more i learned and researched the more I could see that he was about 10 miles away. MZ: Even the quotes you provided now shows that the haze was not a mirage. For example, one of the quotes you provided says there was haze half a mile of the ship. Do you really believe the horizon is half-a-mile of the ship? MZ: Another witness said the haze was on the water. I would not described the haze on the horizon as the haze on the water. TM: No, I believe that the haze on the horizon is the result of light scattering in the unusally long air-part at the horizon, caused by the ray bending around the curvature of the earth. Clearly I don't think that a haze half a mile away could possibly be a miraging haze. In fact I left that in so as not to be cutting too much into the quote, for accuracy. The field ice directly ahead may well have appeared a little like a haze (and even had a haze above it). This was one of the dangers of the thin band of refracting "haze" all around the horizon - that it was so confusing with the field ice in the foreground...and even the "sea smoke" on the water. I believe the lookouts are describing each of these - if you like - three different types of haze. But there is only one which i think is a miraging strip, and that is the thin band of haze all around the horizon. Ships passing through this region in April 1912 sometimes referred to this in their log entries (including those made during the night) as "refraction on the horizon". MZ: In addition, you have completely destroyed testimonies by Fleet and Lee by providing only these parts that suit your narrative. For example, you "forgot" to mention that your main witness Fleet testified that the haze was extanding only "about was about two points on each side" and that your another main witness Lee testified that the haze was really heavy and all around the ship. It is what I meant when during out email communications I told you I was disappointed in your methods of research. TM: My method of research was to read everything. Come to my own conclusions. And then tell that story as briefly and clearly as i then knew how. MZ: BTW I believe that the haze might have been real, but it was probably sea smoke. TM: There was certainly sea smoke, and probably iceblink, but there was also a thin band of haze all around the horizon, which was a miraging haze caused by light scattering in the depth of clear air they could see "along" that night. It is that haze, and that haze only, which I have ever claimed was caused by the abnormal refraction at Titanic's crash site, which was caused by the 10-15 degrees C thermal inversion. Why you did not respond my prior message about the smoke and the "nearby ship" Marengo? I did! I responded to every single one of your points IN CAPS, in the body of your post. Please tell me how to set my comments below yours more clearly. Anyway, my answers as above are as follows. Now you can see why I was using CAPS!: Hi Tim, It might be evidence of an inversion (inversions are very, very common, superior mirages not so much), but it is mostly evidence that there was no mirage. Here's an image of flat-topped smoke due to an invesion [URL]https://homecomingbook.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/flatplume2.jpg[/URL] Do you see a mirage there? The passanger said that smoke rose high into the sky. Only steep close-to-the ground inversion could result in a superior mirage. THANKS MILA AND PLEASE SEE MY COMMENTS IN CAPS BELOW, AS I AM NOT SURE HOW INLINE COMMENTING HERE WORKS YET! I AGREE THAT THE PRESENCE OF AN INVERSION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A MIRAGE IS PRESENT, OF COURSE. ONE NEEDS RAY CROSSING TO CREATE A MIRAGE, NOT JUST ABNORMAL RAY BENDING. SO WE AGREE HERE. I LOVE YOUR PIC OF THE FLAT TOPPED SMOKE. LOVELY ONE! I meant to ask you about this. For example in your book you write and here's what Dr. Paul Lee writes on his site [URL]http://www.paullee.com/titanic/northatlanticships.html[/URL] I did check the logs of Marengo myself and Dr. Lee is correct. MILA, IN MY BOOK I SHOW THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LOG ITSELF, SO PAUL WOULD NOT HAVE TO ASK THE MET OFFICE TO LOOK UP WHAT I HAVE ALREADY SHOWED, EXCEPT TO VERIFY THAT I HAD NOT FAKED THE LOGBOOK IMAGE, OG COURSE!. I AGREE THAT "At noon on April 14th, she was at 40 57 N, 56 3 W; 24 hours later, she was at 40 57 N, 50 29 W." THIS SHOWS HER TRAVELLING FROM WEST TO EAST ALONG THE EASTBOUND STEAMER TRACK, WHICH IS ALONG 40 57N. SO AT THE TIME OF TITANIC'S COLLISION, SHE WAS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF TITANIC'S CRASH SITE AT 49 56 W. AND I NEVER SAID SHE WAS WITHIN VISIBLE RANGE: I JUST SAID THAT SHE RECORDED ABNORMAL REFRACTION AT THE HORIZON AT THE SAME LONGITUDE AND NOT FAR SOUTH OF TITANIC'S CRASH SITE. WHERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT? Then you write: However the picture of the log you presentred in the book appears to show the not April 12 but April 13 [URL='https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/attachments/43119/']View attachment 43119[/URL] YES MILA, THE ENTRY FOR THE 13th RECORDS THAT THE MIRAGE WAS SEEN "ON THE AFTERNOON OF THE 12th", AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE IMAGE ITSELF. Was Niagra still in the area on April 13? NO, SHE WAS IN THE AREA ON THE 12th, AS I SAID IN MY BOOK. Why is that? A mirage could have been not only 20, but even 50 miles away. IMO if Lord observed refraction, saying so would have only helped him to explain why he did not try to help. At least [I]De Coverly[/I] used this theory when he tried to prove that Lord's action were justified. EXACTLY MILA, THAT IS WHY LORD DID NOT WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE ABNORMAL REFRACTION: BECAUSE HE WANTED TO SAY THAT HE WAS BEYOND THE VISIBLE RANGE OF TITANIC. NOW WE BOTH KNOW THAT IN ABNORMALLY REFRACTIVE CONDITIONS HE COULD EVEN HAVE BEEN 50 MILES AWAY AND STILL SEEN TITANIC SINKING. THAT IS WHY HE WANTED TO STICK TO THE MYTH OF NORMAL VISIBILITY RE DISTANCES THAT NIGHT. TM: Thanks and best, and I look forward to continuing our discussions here. I will go through your articles and give you my comments but it will take me some time, naturally. Best wishes, Tim [/QUOTE]
I which year did the Titanic sail?