The Middle Watch

[monica e. hall]

As Monica has observed: "the fact that Stone didn't go to Stewart shows a singular lack of awareness of how to watch one's own back."

Monica thinks this is damning, but only because she believes in the prior misgivings, which Stone denies and denies again under oath that he had.

I didn't think it was "damning", so much as a sort of innocence or naivety.

But in any case, all this happened before the sinking, which means it was almost unbelievable as a possible scenario. Anyone on watch on the Californian would have contemplated any scenario - apart from a sinking Titanic, surely? The really odd thing is that they kept good records of ships and journeys in 1912. How strange we have no inkling about whatever the ship, seen moving by Titanic survivors, or stationary by others elsewhere, cannot be identified.

 

[Paul Rogers]

Stating an opinion as a fact does not, of itself, create a fact. I shall leave the inevitable debate (slanging match?) which will now surely follow to others, with the exception of highlighting a few examples of opinions which have been stated by Mr Molony as facts:

• Without Groves, the claim that the Titanic was the ship seen by the Californian is reduced to rubble.

I can think of a few who would argue with this statement. The argument does not rely on Groves' testimony alone.

• However it is the case that the discovery of the Titanic wreck site, coupled with the radio transmissions of the Californian's position prior to the Titanic's accident, make it overwhelmingly likely that these two ships were over the visible horizon and a very substantial distance from one another.

This argument relies on the massive assumption that Californian's radioed positions were spot-on accurate. Why should this be the case? GPS wasn't around in 1912!

• Accordingly it is certain that Gibson was not looking at the Titanic, and nor was he looking at another sinking ship, for there was none.

"Certain" is a mighty strong word. I would challenge its use in this context, and replace it with "my opinion".

• Of course the identity of this vessel has never been established. The only thing that has been established, by the British Government in 1992, is that facile assumptions about the Californian being the mystery ship have been wrong all along.

In Mr Molony's opinion. And the use of "facile" in a derogatory sense is a nice way of emotionally loading the argument in the reader's mind.

Of course, the one true fact that won't go away is that Californian's Officers didn't bother to check. They made an assumption regarding the rockets seen, and that act was seen by most as unprofessional and the basis for censure. It's all irrelevant anyway; no-one would likely have been saved, even if Californian had steamed flat out for Titanic after seeing the first rocket.

The real question is not: Did Californian see Titanic? The real question is: Why didn't the deck officers DO something to check their assumptions?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

However it is the case that the discovery of the Titanic wreck site, coupled with the radio transmissions of the Californian's position prior to the Titanic's accident, make it overwhelmingly likely that these two ships were over the visible horizon and a very substantial distance from one another.

If one applies a complete analysis of the movements of the Titanic, taking into account the the now known position of the wreck site as well as the likely 7:30 celestial fix by working the Boxhall position backward after correcting his most likely error, we find some very interesting results. By applying the derived current set and drift that resulted in the Titanic being where it is today to the Californian we find that the two ships indeed would be within visual range of each other although in a hull down position. With no visible horizon to use as a reference, the appearance of ship's lights alone could be very misleading when trying to estimate distances. From my own unpublished navigational analysis I find that the Californian was between 10 to 14 nautical miles away from the Titanic when they were both stopped, with the Californian bearing N 45 W true.

As far as 2/O Stone's testimony, I find (actually I can prove) that his reporting of the mystery ship heading away to the SW after 2 AM was either a pure fabrication, or a misreading of his own ship's heading at the time if he even bothered to check.

 

[Dave Gittins]

Just to cover myself, I will be publishing my own account of the Californian affair in the not too distant future.

I'll only say that I agree with Sam on the distance between Titanic and Californian, though I make the bearing nearer NNW, in accordance with Captain Lord's own testimony. I can give a coherent account of how Californian got to where she was, using Lord's own testimony.

As to Stone, there is a likely reason for his story of the changing bearing of the ship. I've hinted at it before. It's a mistake obvious to anybody who has navigated while a bit weary and under pressure. I've made it myself and I'll bet others have too.

 

[Paul Lee]

To add my two-penneth to this, my own study of the Californian case puts her at a distance of about 15 miles, on the same bearing as Sam states,
at 2.20am on 15/4/12

Cheers

Paul

 

[Senan Molony]

>>Boy, you sure rambled on and on, on a simple request for correcting an obvious error. Was your reply an attempt at another article?<<

I confess to rambling only in the sense of length. But you didn't say, Bill, whether or not you are delighted that Groves' superior ramblings, and Ramblings writ large, are now summonable by all at the click of a button!

Monica:
>>I didn't think it was "damning",<<
But you did say it was damning, if you look back at your earlier post.

Paul R:
Give me ONE good reason why the Californian is the ship seen five miles away by Titanic witnesses.
Construct something from the rubble.

PLee:
>>Only one of the two inspectors found that the Titanic and the Californian were outside of their visible ranges.<<

The earlier inspector (an outsider) was dispensed with by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, as his impressions were deemed unreliable.
The Deputy Chief Inspector of the MAIB concluded that the Californian was between 17 and 20 miles away from the Titanic.
What I think doesn't matter and is all argued anyway in "A Ship Accused." But it is the conclusion of the Deputy Chief Inspector and MAIB itself that currently holds sway.
And they didn't even have access to Walter Mitty's "Middle Watch."

Sam and Dave might wish the Californian to be closer to the Titanic than she was (in not only my opinion!) but it should remembered that she was on course to Boston, far to the north of the New York track (such ships cannot see each other), and succeeded in navigating to Boston and not to Buenos Aires.
Nor can she alter her navigational information in wireless transmissions in advance to cover herself for something that hasn't happened yet.
In short, something massive has to change her course to the south to get her to see the Titanic, see Mystery Ship Made Simple. No-one on board the ship, even those who subsequently had doubts, testified to any such change of course.
Groves, who took the trick until the Cal stopped, was following a course laid down of due west, north of 42N. He, of all people, would have testified if it was somehow otherwise.
They stopped before the Titanic was stopped. Hove to all night, as is common case. Boxhall, with glasses, was detailed to study the Titanic's mystery ship and he "covered it all by saying she was approaching."
People like to have their little hatreds. I'll agree Captain Lord does not take a good photograph. But he was of-duty and below at the time.
There is no evidence that he or his OOW actively "ignored" something they knew they should have acted upon. Stone says somewhere that if he had known they were signals of distress he would have "pulled him out," referring to Lord.
As to Stone being weary while navigating "under pressure," he was not under pressure and he was not navigating. His ship was stopped.
Of course the 1992 British Report also identifies "weakness" on the part of Stone and suggests he was trying to persuade himself there was no real cause for alarm. Is this reasonable? Yes. Does it make him, his Captain, or the Californian evil and homicidally complicit? No.
Finally, it is regrettable that no thorough investigation was made into the whereabouts of all vessels that night (esp those not equipped with wireless, which rules out simple recourse to the Marconi liner chart).
The British Government MAIB in 1992 concedes that "given the amount of shipping in the area, it must be very probable that Californian was not the only ship to see the signals" - which rather rules out the Empty Sea theory, does it not?
I can tell Dave there is another Californian book due out this year. I am looking at a proof now. He and others will be glad to know that it is not by me.

 

[monica e. hall]

Nah, that's my crummy syntax, Senan. I meant that it contributed to the factors assembled at the Inquiries to 'damn' the Californian (Lord).

I did, and still do, find it rather odd that he didn't do something a bit more proactive, not necessarily because I think he was watching the Titanic - given the distances it seems unlikely - but merely because under potentially dangerous conditions (ice) I think I would have been concerned by any signal, flares or rockets. I suggested once that he should have gone down and poked the Captain properly awake, and told him to come and look for himself. However, I was firmly informed by our marine colleagues that one would hesitate long to do that even today, never mind in 1912. Having only ever worked in industry and education, I am quite used to dragging unwilling bosses into events they'd rather ignore, so I'm obviously the last person to understand that night's unfolding drama. However, if what you say is correct, Stone said somewhere he would have done just that had he been sufficiently concerned which would mean, effectively, that he shouldered the responsibility and protected his captain.

If I'm honest, interested though I am in the Californian debate, what I actually know about it is best described as negligible compared to the rest of you. So I don't want to contribute to any controversy, as I'm too ignorant of the circumstances (though not of the visible horizon maths).

It's all rather modern really, isn't it? The search for the human scapegoat; the reluctance to show understanding of the actions of those in confusing or difficult circumstances; the attempts of those responsible for critical procedures (BoT) to deflect attention from same; the political dimensions governing the Inquiry personnel; the media verdicts? I know it well.

So, before I come over all philosophical, I'm going to work.

I can tell Dave there is another Californian book due out this year. I am looking at a proof now. He and others will be glad to know that it is not by me.

Oh, I don't know. Californian protagonists seem to thrive on contention. But in an objective way, one hopes.

 

[Paul Rogers]

Paul R:
Give me ONE good reason why the Californian is the ship seen five miles away by Titanic witnesses.
Construct something from the rubble.

Um, I never said Californian was 5 miles from Titanic and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Besides, how does Groves being removed from the equation affect the testimony of Titanic witnesses, as you are now arguing? As I stated, the argument (that the two ships were visible to each other) doesn't rely on Groves' testimony alone. Or am I missing something?

As a side issue, I doubt that Californian was only 5 miles away, although I do believe (based on reading solely and not on personal calculation) that the two ships were visible to each other. I'm also not totally refuting the possibility of a "mystery ship" being present, and closer, to Titanic than Californian although Occam's Razor always leaps to mind whenever one looks at this stuff. Unfortunately, one cannot prove a negative, as most know.

All I'm saying is that all of the above is a massive red herring. It's not where Californian was that's the issue - it's what her Officers failed to do. Just my (very uneducated) opinion - nothing more. And I'll stop repeating myself now.

 

[DBillnitzer]

>> I can tell Dave [Gittins] there is another Californian book due out this year. I am looking at a proof now. He and others will be glad to know that it is not by me. <<

He must be talking about the Williams manuscript. ;-)

Dave Billnitzer

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

Hey Dave B: More info on this please. I've heard that a new Californian book may be coming down the pike, but have heard no more than that.

 

[Senan Molony]

Somebody give me ONE good reason why the ship seen by Titanic five miles away must be the Californian?

Paul Rogers, ignore the distance. Anyone give me ONE good reason why the ship seen from the Titanic must be the Californian.

Titanic witnesses averaged five miles in their estimate of distance. Mersey, we know, said eight to ten.

Titanic officers afterwards (see their testimony in Ryan v. OSNC) empirically REJECTED Mersey's findings.

They stuck to their own much lower estimates, Pitman for the first time having his guess. He guessed two miles.

Proximity of ships to Titanic and Californian gives a grand total of four ships.

It is a fallacy to imagine that these ships have to be in a line. They can relate to each other differently once the pairs are over the visible horizon from each other.

All Californian has to do is see "low-lying" rockets in the director of her nearby stranger (as they did) for confusion to be created.

 

[Paul Rogers]

It is a fallacy to imagine that these ships have to be in a line. They can relate to each other differently once the pairs are over the visible horizon from each other.

All Californian has to do is see "low-lying" rockets in the director of her nearby stranger (as they did) for confusion to be created.

Mr Molony, I would agree with this statement (apart from your comment in brackets, which is still your opinion, not fact). At the risk of being rude, so what? Californian's Officers still did see rockets, and they still did nothing. Until that issue is dealt with, everything else is irrelevant.

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

Senan said:

"But you didn't say, Bill, whether or not you are delighted that Groves' superior ramblings are now summonable by all at the click of a button!"

Yes, I am happy to see Grove's article on line, if for no other reason than it's more information. However, it's been online for a while. Dave Billnitzer's "Titanic and the Californian" web-site has had "The Middle Watch" available since early 2003.

 

[DBillnitzer]

Hi Bill:

Thanks, but just a minor point here: I've had it on my site since about April 1998 (I'd have to look at my weblogs). Brian had obtained it from Groves's niece, and was kind enough to share it with me just before he published it in March of that year. He asked me to hold off on adding it to my site until the BTS had had a chance to publish it first.

I seem to recall that he also offered it Mark Taylor's Titanic list shortly after that too, and that there was some discussion about it on Mark's list at that time. I know others on the board here mentioned having it since about that time, and I presume they either got it from the BTS journal or Mark's list, or perhaps from Brian himself, or perhaps from my site. It's been floating about for a few years, that's for sure. In any case, as Inger said above:

>> I'm glad to see that Brian Ticehurst's precedence in the matter has been established, <<

and I agree with her completely. ;-)

Although I suppose to be entirely accurate, we have to thank Victor Groves's niece!

Dave Billnitzer

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I'd like to ask the question about distance between ships a little differently. Can someone explain to how anyone, on the Titanic or on the Californian, could accurately estimate distances at night by only observing the lights of another vessels? We know from all witnesses that there was no horizon, no haze (despite what Fleet and Lee later said), no hull forms or superstructure visible, just lights on perfectly clear, moonless night. And because of the clarity of the night, objects may very well tend to appear closer than they actually are. (My analogy is the lineup of arriving airplanes at night on the same final approach course to a major airport. The so called string of pearls.) So the when we hear 2 miles, 5 miles, or 10 miles distant, they are all guesses without any real reference. And we do know (from Stone and Gibson on the Californian, and from Rowe on the Titanic) that both ships were swinging somewhat in their heading as the night wore on. So although both ships were not under way, relative bearings were changing on both vessels, apparently much more so on the Californian than on the Titanic.

And Senan, you said that I may have wished the Californian to be closer to the Titanic than she really was. I can only say that I have no such wish at all. I am only trying to understand what happened based on all the information that is available, and subjecting this data to analysis. Your statement about the Californian "seeing 'low-lying' rockets in the direction of her nearby stranger (as they did) for confusion to be created" is most interesting. Either those rockets came from beyond the stranger, or they came from the stranger.

2/O Stone had this to say about that: "But that I could not understand why if the rockets came from a steamer beyond this one, when the steamer altered her bearing the rockets should also alter their bearings." And when it was suggested to him that "that pointed to this, that the rockets did come from this steamer?" Stone replied: "It does, although I saw no actual evidence of their being fired from the deck of the steamer except in one case." So here we have a Californian watch officer telling us that rockets appeared to come from beyond the stranger but followed the stranger as the stranger appeared to be steaming away.

So Senan, please explain where did these rockets come from if not from the vessel that Stone and Gibson were watching? And if they came from a vessel beyond, how could they follow the stranger?