The Lifeboat Launching Sequence Reexamined 2009

B

Bill Wormstedt

Member
In light of the discussions and comments brought up the last few years, both here on ET and elsewhere, Tad Fitch, George Behe and I have gone back to the original testimonies to re-examine our previous conclusions. Though we've adjusted some of our timings a bit, our major conclusions (and bones of contention) remain the same:
1) The first lifeboats were lowered around 12:40 to 12:45.
2) Lifeboat #10 was lowered last of the aft port boats
3) Collapsible C was lowered around 2:00 a.m., twenty minutes before Titanic sank

We'd like to thank those who participated in these previous discussions; because of them, our additional research further convinces us of the accuracy of our original conclusions. We've found quite a bit more testimony to support these conclusions, and all of the 'new' details are in our article.
 
For those of you who aren't familiar with Bill's Titanic website, here is the address for our article described above.

If you have time, be sure to check out some of the other materials Bill has on his Titanic website, there is some good stuff on there.

As a side note, I wanted to thank Bill and George for all of their hard work on this, and a special thank you to Sam Halpern and J. Kent Layton for their insight and support while we were working on the revisions and additions to the lifeboat article. We were working on this for a long time, and with all of us having busy lives, it took quite a while. I hope everyone finds it interesting.

All my best,
Tad
 
It's a wonderful piece of research, gentlemen. It was a privilege to be involved, even in a small way, in the revisions process. I believe that it is the best-balanced study of the lifeboat-launching sequence and timing published to date.
 
Tad,

Not a problem. I was more than happy to help in any way that I could; I think my contribution was, in the end, pretty small, but I'm glad it was of at least some use to you.

happy.gif


Take care!
 
There is much to be said for a collaborative effort. That is what makes the results so much more valuable and enhances the probability of getting things right. Research in isolation can easily lead to erroneous results. The give and take during discussions, the multiple eyes in reviewing new and old sections, and the collective efforts of everyone involved, no matter how large or small, was priceless in my opinion.
 
Wasn't there also a mention somewhere that the times of the Marconi distress signals could be correlated with Boxhall's first rocket firing, and this ties the time of the 1st boat launch to about 12.35 - 12.40am ?
 
Bill, Tad,

Since the points of contention concerning your ordering of the lifeboat are, as, you say, the three assertions you haven't changed, I don't understand what this thread is actually about. How have the discussions influenced your thinking, if you haven't revised in any way your thinking?

All three assertions--particularly the last two--are highly speculative at best, and simply fantasies, really, at worst. I would suggest those in doubt should read my writings on this subject as well as those of Senan Molony,and judge for yourselves.

DG
 
David,

Tad, George and I posted the notice of our article here, to give interested parties a look at our research and conclusions.

You asked "How have the discussions influenced your thinking, if you haven't revised in any way your thinking?" Though our conclusions about the 3 main points haven't changed, we have revised some of the times we feel various lifeboats left. For example, we now feel #10 left the Titanic even later than our original timeline.

I totally disagree with your assertion that our three major points are highly speculative at best. We found even more evidence of our points while researching things further. Read our article carefully and see.

I read your book very carefully when you were nice enough to send it to me, and noted down many cases where we disagree, and why we disagree. Though you made some good points regarding the treatment of the 3rd class, there was nothing to convince me to change my mind on the lifeboat sequence.

As far as Molony's works, I've read those regarding the lifeboat lowering, and find much of his logic just doesn't hold water in the light of the testimonies, and what can possibly happen in certain times.

I do keep up with other writers on this subject, and will revise my conclusions in light of some good hard logic based on the testimonies and accounts.
 
David,
Hello, how have you been? I hope that things have been going well.

The discussions referenced have influenced our thinking because we were able to take those disagreements or differences of opinion, go back and critically and objectively examine those contentions, as well as our original findings.

When we did so, we found additional evidence that supported our original conclusions, rather than evidence that ran counter to them. Some minor changes were necessitated and made as more evidence came to light, such as the times for the aft boats, although not the order, actually being a few minutes later than we initially had them. Nobody said that there weren't any revisions, in fact, this whole thread is about the revisions.

This wasn't a process that we conducted solely amongst Bill, George, and myself. We were lucky enough to have a number of other excellent researchers such as Sam Halpern and J. Kent Layton who were kind enough to take a look at our findings, and they did so with a critical eye. Anyone who knows them knows that they are not the type to agree if they don't really agree with someone's findings. In fact, both pointed out some evidence that we had not properly accounted for initially, and we made changes to reflect that evidence. We also took Senan and your different objections into account.

We are always open to changes in our findings if new evidence comes to light that necessitates a revision. The evidence pushes the conclusions rather than the conclusions pushing the evidence.

As you have said, we also encourage the readers to look at both your writings on the subject as well as Senan's (this is interesting, because both of you reach a number of different opinions between each other on this subject), and judge for themselves.

We feel very strongly about our findings, explain the evidence and reference it in our articles. There is no wild speculation or undocumented claims. If you want to label that a "fantasy" because it runs counter to your opinion, that is fine, but by all means, please back this up with evidence if you are going to make that claim. As I have pointed out in the past after you were kind enough to send a copy of your book (I enjoyed it even though we disagree on a number of points), there are a number of points where I disagree with your launch sequence and feel that there are critical errors, and I listed the accounts and evidence indicating these rather than simply writing off your findings as a "fantasy."

Kind regards,
Tad
 
I've just read Senan Mollony's article that prompted all this. Have you noticed how he has based many of his writings on the research of people he doesn't like (Bill Wormstedt, George Behe etc.) simply as a way of humiliating them: "my research is better than yours." In the McGogh article he goes out of his way to rubbish Mr.Behe, when his own research into McGogh is, demonstrated by the latest lifeboat lowering article, addled nonsense and highly selective "fantasy" as David has said above. One can look at the inquiry transcripts to see this to see what has been considered - and what has been left out.
 

Similar threads

B
Titanic The Lifeboat Launching Sequence ReExamined
2
Replies
16
Views
4K
Fiona Nitschke
Fiona Nitschke
Back
Top