The Middle Watch

[David Billnitzer]

Another example of "willful and dishonest" distortion; Senan wrote:

'Anyone interested should check out the MAIB report. If you send them some money they will probably send you a photocopy. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch of the Department of Transport currently asserts the official British Government position - which naturally reverses the Mersey "findings."'

No need to send the MAIB any money; you can download it from their website in a .pdf format:

http://www.maib.dft.gov.uk/sites/maib/publications/investigation_reports/popular_reports/rms__titanic___reappraisal_of_evidence_relation_to_ss__califo rnian_.cfm

Like Groves's "Middle Watch" memoir, the MAIB report has been readily available for quite a while. And anyone who has read the MAIB's 1992 re-investigation knows that it did not "naturally reverse" Mersey's findings, but using two different assessors (Capt Barnett, who supported the 1912 findings, and Capt deCoverely, who refuted them), merely tried to please both sides and finally ended as inconclusively as imaginable:

"The position of the Californian cannot be deduced so accurately; Capt. Barnett considers she may have been... only 5 to 7 miles off. In my opinion, Californian was... between 17 and 20 miles from Titanic - most likely about 18 miles."

and later:

"Captain Barnett considers that Titanic was seen by Californian, by her master, and others. I think it is possible that she was seen, due to abnormal refraction permitting sight beyond the ordinary visible horizon, but more likely that she was not seen."

and later still:

"Captain Barnett considers that Titanic's distress signals were seen, and that proper action was not taken. I agree on both counts...

"Captain Barnett considers that further action should have been taken, and I agree... Merely attempting to call by Morse lamp fell far short of what was needed."

And concluded with:

"Neither party will be satisfied with this report, but while it does not purport to answer all the questions which have been raised it does attempt to distinguish the essential circumstances and set out reasoned and realistic interpretations."

All of which caused Leslie Harrison to call it "an admission of failure to achieve the purpose of the re-appraisal." (THS 1992. One can imagine his dismay: thirty years' worth of petitions, PR campaigns, books and pamphlets, down the drain in a namby-pamby exercise of government placation.)

Of course, as Senan has since privately published his own theories about the Californian, he has an incentive now to keep these theories out there. But the MAIB can hardly be said to have reversed Mersey's findings.

Dave Billnitzer

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Another example of "willful and dishonest" distortion; Senan wrote...<<

As per Phil Hind's admonishment, let's remember to punch holes in the arguement and not each other.

 

[John Knight]

Ok here goes. Forgive me for being a lowly land lubber with very limited nautical knowledge but I wish to make three set of observations.

1) Rockets were seen by members of the Californian crew? if they had been fired by any other ship including one placed between the Californian and the Titanic, why did nobody on Titanic see rockets other than those fired from the Titanic? Or have I missed something?
2)Unless I've misread various books is it not true that crew members of the Californian including captain Lord testified to seeing a large steamer come up, pass them, and then appear to stop sometime around 1140? and that she did not disappear from view?
3) Were rockets not seen coming from the direction of this steamer? and that she then only disappeared from view sometime after they had stopped?

Ok I'll be in my bunker if anyone wants to throw grenades.
Regards,
John.

 

[Matthew Lips]

I am probably even more of a landlubber than John, and I am probably missing something crucial in all this debate, but in my self-confessed ignorance I do have some trouble with the four ship theory.

Let's call the two mystery vessels X and Y. X is the mystery ship seen by Titanic, close enough signal by lamp and to think of rowing towards. Y is the unknown ship seen by Californian.

Now it seems to me that, if Californian could see rockets (even 20 miles away), then X certainly and Y probably would have seen them too. Even assuming that X and Y had either no radio or a single operator who had retired for the night leaving the set unmanned, there would still have to be at the very least officers etc. on watch aboard both X and Y. Not to mention, possibly someone sneaking on deck for a smoke or something.

Yet here we have X, so close to Titanic to be within feasible rowing distance, doing absolutely nothing about the huge fireworks display going on right on her doorstep. Somebody must have seen something, and probably heard it too, unless X happened to be the original Ghost Ship.

Not only that, but nobody ever came forward in 1912 or at any subsequent time to say that they had a grandstand, front row seat to the most famous shipwreck in history. Unlike the crew and passengers of such vessels as the Californian and Mount Temple, who had plenty to say - lot's of it BS.

Instead, both X and Y just quietly disappeared into the night as if they never existed. Could it be, because they in fact never existed??

I mean no disrespect, and compared to Senan and others arguing this point my knowledge of the subject is extremely thin, but if the scenario being suggested is remotely like what I understand it to be then I have to say: no way can I buy in.

If that makes me sound like I'm joining the band of Californian-bashers, then so be it, but the idea of two ships standing around and seeing nothing, doing nothing, hearing nothing, and vanishing like ghosts into oblivion, doesn't work for me.

Now if John will let me share his bunker I can also be used as target practice for grenade throwers!

 

[Paul Lee]

I actually lost interest in this debate after Senan badgering me about his notion that two ships 17 miles away couldn't see each other's lights. They certainly could during the mid-1990s RMS Titanic Inc. cruise ship trip to the wrecksite

Paul

 

[Lori Coleman]

It seems that the defenders of the Californian base their arguments on the idea that if they can create enough "reasonable doubt" as to who saw what ship, they have succeeded. Maybe this would be true in a court of law, but in the land of common sense, it doesn't make a bit of difference. Because this question gets asked over and over without an answer: Why didn't they come to the aid of a ship firing rockets?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Lori, I think you summed up things very well. Over the years there are those that have invented scenarios that would create doubt as to what those on the middle watch of the Californian were actually seeing that night. It includes one or two mystery ships that have to appear on the scene and can be made to fit some of the observations and estimates reported by those that were there. Common sense is not part of the equation. And on that point I would have to agree. Sometimes applying just common sense can be wrong. However, if one carefully explores all the evidence and tests that evidence to see if someone's theory holds together, then you will find that in this case these mystery ship theories do not hold up. The problem is that if you believe that the only two ships involved in all this were the Titanic and Californian, then there are certain observations that were reported that don't seem to fit that situation either. (For example, we know from morning observations of the Californian and Carpathia taken from the Mount Temple that the Californian could not have been as close as 5 miles to where the Titanic had sunk. However, we have observers on both ships, Californian and Titanic, that estimated that the ships they were observing were only about 5 miles from each other. So you see, one easy way to explain this is to introduce a ship or two in between.)

Of course there are other explanations that can be brought in that don't require mystery ships. And I think the problem has been that nobody has to this point come up with a fully coherent account that explains what most likely had happened that night and why people saw what they said they saw without the need to introduce mystery ships.

Now in this particular debate, certain facts have been stated about the location of the wreck site, reported stopped positions and track lines, what certain people on the Titanic saw and reported on, etc. And as I said with this before, if we take everything at face value only, a four ship scenario is what you wind up with. But, I also said that it can be shown that a four ship scenario could not have happened, not because common sense says it is unlikely to be true, but because of what was not seen and should have been by those on the two ships that we know were there if it were true.

Of course that does not answer your final question. Why did the Californian not make an attempt to come to the aid of a ship firing rockets? And the answer to that from those that advocate a mystery ship or two theory is that those on the middle watch were not sure that what they were seeing was a ship in distress at all. The problem is that they want you to believe that even if the rockets they saw came from the sinking Titanic, those on the Californian had no way to know that, that they thought the the white rockets they were looking at were company signals despite that the only signals that would be used in mid ocean are for distress, that Californian's 2nd officer Stone was misled by the nearby stranger who stopped over an hour before the rockets were seen and obviously could not have been in distress, that Capt. Lord when told of a white rocket by Stone asked about company signals thus adding to the confusion of what Stone was looking at, of Stone not giving Lord a definitive answer about whether the rocket was a company signal or a distress signals, etc., etc. Stone, of course, threw the entire thing into Lord's lap by reporting what he saw and left it to the Master to take whatever action was appropriate. Lord failed to take decisive action at that time other than telling Stone to continue and try and signal the stranger by Morse lamp. He never thought of waking up the wireless operator or going up to the upper bridge to see what was going on himself. Instead he went to sleep leaving instructions that he was to be informed if the ship answers their Morse signaling or if there is any change in the situation. Even though Stone goes on to see a total of 8 rockets, he doesn't inform Lord of anything until the ship they were watching disappeared about 2:05 AM Californian time, which incidently would be about 2:16 AM Titanic time; about the time the Titanic's lights went out.

 

[Inger Sheil]

Of course, as Senan has since privately published his own theories about the Californian, he has an incentive now to keep these theories out there.

Dave, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in the above message and assume that, as you don't know Senan, you sincerely believe that he is motivated in this matter by financial impulses(!). As someone who knows him and who has discussed this matter with him for years, I find this is one of those snort-coffee-out-the-nose moments - I can hardly think of a more off the mark interpretation of Molony's approach. I've disagreed with him, I've debated obscure angles with him on this matter, I've become impatient with him (and he's become exceedingly frustrated with me) and I've even conceded the odd point in our discussions - but I have never for a moment doubted his integrity on this issue. Nor, apparently, has he doubted mine in disagreeing with him (the exact phrase he used once, I believe, is that mine is an 'honourable' position).

I've been harrangued by those taking opposing sides on this matter - barrages of emails from people who do not even participate publicly in the debate, for example. This is one reason why the discussion has become exceedingly stale to me. However, one person who has never harrangued me has been Senan Molony - although he does use all his persuasive tactics.

I used to be of the opinion that anything reportedly seen from the Titanic that suggested the ship in view was anything other than the Californian was a diversionary red herring. I can attribute to Senan's persistent efforts an opening of my mind and a realisation that this is not the case - that it is seminal to questions of ships that did or did not take action. I haven't essentially altered my POV on the (in)actions taken on the Californian, but I'm no longer as inclined to reduce the argument to simple statements. There's a tendency on both sides to boil it down to what each sees as elemental truths - from Lord's 'it sailed away...' to 'there can only have been two ships there that night'.

After being challenged by Senan, I went through a re-examination of evidence that I had previously taken for granted, and arrived at disturbing conclusions about tactics employed by both sides of the debate. Take, for example, Harold Lowe's affidavit. It is only through my own area of research that I became aware of this source of information. I had always found it puzzling that the British Inquiry gave only cursory attention to Lowe's observations of the 'mystery ship'. Two brief questions! I found it even more puzzling when I had access to the affidavit he swore in NY for the purposes of the inquiry, and realised that he had made more observations of the ship and it's movements that the British Inquiry made no attempt to follow up. Then I found that Reade had access to the affidavit, but quoted it selectively, leaving out material that countered his arguments! The affidavit was effectively buried twice. It is at Senan's urging that I hope to include it in its entirety in my work, in spite of the fact that it can be used to support more than one position on the controversy. It is that integrity I have found in Senan that means that when - hopefully - later this week I am able to access another source from a witness that touches on this controversy, I'll be sending a copy to him. Not because we agree in every aspect, but because I respect his position and how he arrived at it.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I'd like to see that affidavit myself. These days, the Californian is something of a tertiary interest to me. Personally, I think there are aspects of the whole Yes-He's-Guilty-No-He-Isn't debate that actually put the cart befor the horse by distracting attention from some of the core issues that were at the very heart of the disaster itself, and what I find disturbing about that is that this may have been the idea from the very beginning.

It might have been helpful if either inquiry was a thoroughly dispassionate and impartial search for the truth with no politiking around and no agendas of any kind, but does anyone really buy into that one? I don't. Senator Smith was gunning for the Morgan Trust and the Mersey Court hardly lacked for people with vested interests to protect. For either one, the Californain mess must have seemed like a Heavan sent gift as it gave them somebody to blame whether that somebody was guilty or not.

I don't think there's a lot of doubt about Captain Lord and company royally screwing the pooch on this one though I do respect and understand the reasons why some believe otherwise. The preponderance of the evidence is against him and this never goes away IMO but I could be wrong. (No doubt, somebody will cheerfully tell me as much.) By the same token, I think a very real injustice was done to the man. He was essentially indicted without ever being indicted, tried without ever being tried and convicted without ever being convicted and never had any real remedy or recourse for that since legally nothing ever happened.

Due process is something I'm a bit funny about. The man deserved to have his day in court, win, lose or draw and this didn't happen at any time where it really would have mattered. By the time anyone with any real juice gave it a fresh look, he was long in his grave and the witnesses along with him.

If anyone wants to brand me an "Anti-Lordite" for believing the preponderance of the evidence is against him, then be my guest. If anyone wants to brand me a "Lordite" for having issues with the hatchet job done by the inquiries and the lack of due process, I can live with that too.

'Nuff said from me.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate, already in progress.

 

[Senan Molony]

Hi gents - I'm back!

In a moment I am going to post the evidence of Boxhall, the Titanic officer tasked with observing the mystery ship. Message board squatters can look at the evidence and decide for themselves whether this can be the stationary Californian.

Why do Dave, Dave, Samuel, Paul etc not address the fact that Californian was stationary from 10.21pm to 6am?

Bit of an oversight, lads?

Dave Billnitzer claims my sketch, above, is "almost precisely" that given by Peter Padfield in his book, which I have just looked up.

I am severely tempted to post the Padfield range of drawings to show what "almost precisely" means in Billnitzer language.

For your information, I sketched that drawing on coming in from the pub and scanned it. I made no reference to Padfield or anyone else.

It demonstrates to the pseudo-scientists here that the Titanic and her mystery ship (at five miles, hello gentlemen, another reality check) an relate to each other any way they want, and it has no bearing on the other pair of ships. Despite claims aired here.

Dave Billnitzer likes to throw around the word "Lordite," which, I suggest, shows the narrowness of his horizons. He is defining himself in terms of his attitude to a fairly ordinary British seafarer who has been dead for 40 years. Is this not the ultimate in blinkered
thinking? and these revelatory epithets are from out of your own mouth.

I owe no loyalty to Stanley Lord. I do not know anyone who describes themselves as "Lordite." I see many a troglodyte here who positively revels in their "Anti-Lordite" appellation. As I say, most revelatory.

Seeing that the Emperor has no clothes, and that Dave, Dave, Samuel and others cannot succeed in their desire to turn the Titanic's mystery ship into the Californian, it does not worry me in the least that I find myself outnumbered by ignorance, from Samuel who claimed that there was no reason to "invent" more ships, to Mr Billnitzer who ascribes to me a financial motive for continuing to push "Lordite" 'propaganda.'

Really? I suppose the 25 free Titanic Research articles I have published on this site are all a cunning loss-leader so that I can cynically sell ideas I know to be false?

On the contrary, while you have once more revealed yourself, I am perfectly happy to swim against the tide. But let's indeed look at motive...

Why indeed would a "Lordite" publicly take on the Brains Trust of Dave, Dave, Samuel, etc? You cite a laughable financial motive - actually I don't want for money, and I am sure I work less hours than the vast majority of people here.

Perhaps you grant me a smidgin of intelligence? I am happy to compare my record in Titanic research to yours, or anyone's. I'll stand that comparison any day.

The point then is, why do people of intelligence continue to laugh at Lord Mersey's findings, and like-minded Halpernisms, 90 years on?

Why do some of them invite the attentions of a pack of critics, who would really rather believe that the Californian was simply the Titanic's mystery ship, ignoring the evidence?

Is it a perversion? masochism? devotion to a sailor who died in the early 1960s? And for what purpose?

I am sure you would like people to go away and not point out your absence of clothes. Too bad... the mystery ship is moving by the evidence of the people who saw it.

And you can't turn a green light into a red, although I saw most carefully how Samuel used ellipsis (dot, dot, dot) above, to LEAVE OUT crucial Boxhall evidence which didn't suit his preference to believe in a flat Earth.

Paul Lee, if you are interested in being badgered, maybe you should become a "Lordite." My "notion that two ships 17 miles away couldn't see each other's lights" is perfectly correct. Your continued demonstrations of your idiocy in this regard are most welcome.

 

[Senan Molony]

For those too lazy to look up the evidence:

Boxhall testimony about the Mystery Ship in sequence:

April 22, New York:

Senator SMITH. From what you saw of that vessel, how far would you think she was from
the Titanic?
Mr BOXHALL: I should say approximately the ship would be about 5 miles. (Oh dear, Samuel... but Boxhall is "not infallible"?)
Senator Smith: What lights did you see?
BOXHALL: The two masthead lights and the red light. (oh dear, red...)
Senator SMITH. Were the two masthead lights the first lights that you could see?
Mr BOXHALL: The first lights.
Senator SMITH. And what other lights?
Mr BOXHALL. And then, as she got closer, she showed her side light, her red light.
(Oh dear, Samuel, oh dear. Poor Dave Billnitzer trying to turn a green light on Californian into a red. Here is Boxhall saying his APPROACHING ship [Cal stopped] shows a red light as she turns.)
Senator Smith: So you were quite sure she was coming in your direction?
Mr BOXHALL. Quite sure. (sorry guys!)

Later

BOXHALL: ...My attention until the time I left the ship was mostly taken up with firing off distress rockets and trying to signal a steamer that was almost ahead of us.
(So Boxhall was most involved with the mystery ship...)
Senator Smith: How far ahead of you?
BOXHALL: It is hard to say. I saw his masthead lights and I saw his side light.
Senator SMITH. In what direction?
BOXHALL: Almost ahead of us.
Senator SMITH. On the same course, apparently?
BOXHALL: No; oh, no. [course is a vector]
Senator SMITH. On the same general course?
BOXHALL: By the way she was heading she seemed to be meeting us.
Senator SMITH. Coming toward you?
BOXHALL. Coming toward us. (Poor old self-described Anti-Lordites)
Senator SMITH. Do you know anything about what boat that was?
BOXHALL: No, sir.
Senator SMITH. Have you had any information since about it?
BOXHALL: None whatever.
Senator SMITH. You say you fired these rockets and otherwise attempted to signal her?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir. She got close enough, as I thought, to read our electric Morse signal, and I signaled to her; I told her to come at once, we were sinking; and the captain was standing -
Senator SMITH. This was the signal?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir.
Senator SMITH. Go ahead.
BOXHALL: I told the captain about this ship, and he was with me most of the time when we were signalling.
Senator SMITH. Did he also see it?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir.
Senator SMITH. Did he tell you to do anything else to arrest its attention?
BOXHALL: I went over and started the Morse signal. He said, "Tell him to come at once, we are sinking."

Next day of Boxhall testimony, US Inquiry:

Senator FLETCHER. I understood you to say that you saw a steamer almost ahead of you, or
saw a light that night, about the time of the collision?
BOXHALL: Shortly afterwards; yes, sir.
Senator FLETCHER. Did you describe that light? What was the character of the light you
saw; and did you see more than one?
BOXHALL: At first. I saw two masthead lights of a steamer, just slightly opened, and later she got closer to us, until, eventually, I could see her side lights with my naked eye.
Senator FLETCHER. Was she approaching you?
BOXHALL: Evidently she was, because I was stopped.
Senator FLETCHER. And how far away was she?
BOXHALL: I considered she was about 5 miles away.
Senator FLETCHER. In which direction?
BOXHALL: She was headed toward us, meeting us.
Senator FLETCHER. Was she a little toward your port bow?
BOXHALL: Just about half a point off our port bow.
Senator FLETCHER. And apparently coming toward you?
BOXHALL: Yes.
Senator FLETCHER. And how soon after the collision?
BOXHALL: I can not say about that. It was shortly after the order was given to clear
the boats.
Senator FLETCHER. Did you continue to see that steamer?
BOXHALL: I saw that light, saw all the lights of course, before I got into my boat, and
just before I got into the boat she seemed as if she had turned around. I saw just one single
bright light then, which I took to be her stern light.
Senator FLETCHER. She apparently turned around within 5 miles of you?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir.
Senator FLETCHER. had the rockets then gone off on the Titanic?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir. I had been firing off rockets before I saw her side lights. I fired
off the rockets and then she got so close. I could see her side lights and starboard light.
Senator FLETCHER. What kind of steamer was that which you saw, that apparently turned
around, as to size and character?
BOXHALL: That is hard to state, but the lights were on masts which were fairly close
together - the masthead lights.
Senator FLETCHER. What would that indicate?
BOXHALL: That the masts were pretty close together. She might have been a four-
mast ship or might have been a three-mast ship, but she certainly was not a two mast ship.
Senator FLETCHER. Could you form any idea as to her size?
BOXHALL: No; I could not.
Senator FLETCHER. You know it was a steamer and not a sailing vessel?
BOXHALL: Oh, yes; she was a steamer, carrying steaming lights - white lights.
Senator FLETCHER. She could not have been a fishing vessel?
BOXHALL: No, sir.
Senator FLETCHER. Was she a sailing vessel?
BOXHALL: No, sir; a sailing vessel does not show steaming lights, or white lights.

Senator FLETCHER. After you got in the water did you see the light from this steamer that you had seen previously?
BOXHALL: Yes; I saw it for a little while and then lost it. When I pulled around the ship I could not see it any more, and did not see it any more.
Senator FLETCHER. Apparently that ship came within 4 or 5 miles of the Titanic, and then turned and went away in what direction, westward or southward?
BOXHALL: I do not know whether it was southwestward. I should say it was westerly.
Senator FLETCHER. In westerly direction; almost in the direction which she had come?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir.
Senator SMITH. Mr Boxhall, you saw your ship with the light?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir.
Senator SMITH. Anti you took the rockets and fired them, to signal to it?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir.
[Look at this for prejudical preconception!]Senator SMITH. We have been figuring the distance the Californian was away from the
Titanic, and from the positions given we have concluded - that is, we have evidence to support
the theory - that the Californian was but 14 miles distant from the Titanic. Do you think that
under those circumstances you could have seen the Californian?
BOXHALL. I do not know, sir. I should not think so. (Oh dear, Samuel, oh dear).
Senator SMITH. You should not?
BOXHALL: No. Five miles is the distance the British Board of Trade requires masthead lights to show - that is, the white steaming lights of the steamer - but we know that they can be seen farther on such a clear night as that.

April 29:

Senator BURTON: You are very positive you saw that ship ahead on the port bow, are you?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir, quite positive.
Senator BURTON: Did you see the green or red light?
BOXHALL: Yes; I saw the side lights with my naked eye.
Senator BURTON: When did you see them?
BOXHALL: From our ship, before I left the ship. I saw this steamer's stern light before I went into my boat, which indicated that the ship had turned around. I saw a white light, and I could not see any of the masthead lights that I had seen previously and I took it for a stern light.
Senator BURTON: Which light did you see first?
Mr. BOXHALL: I saw the masthead lights first, the two steaming lights; and then, as she
drew up closer, I saw her side lights through my glasses, and eventually I saw the red light. I had seen the green, but I saw the red most of the time. I saw the red light with my naked eye.
Senator BURTON: Did she pull away from you?
BOXHALL: I do not know when she turned; I cannot say when I missed the lights, because I was leaving the bridge to go and fire off some more of those distress rockets and attend to other duties.
Senator BURTON: Then your idea is that she was coming toward you on the port side?
BOXHALL: Yes.
Senator BURTON: Because you saw the red light and the masthead lights?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir.
Senator BURTON: Afterward you saw the green light, which showed that she had turned?
BOXHALL: I think I saw the green light before I saw the red light, as a matter of fact. But the ship was meeting us. I am covering the whole thing by saying the ship was meeting us.
Senator BURTON: Your impression is she turned away, or turned on a different course?
BOXHALL: That is my impression.
Senator BURTON. At a later time, when you were in the boat after it had been lowered,
what light did you see?
BOXHALL: I saw this single light, which I took to be her stern light, just before I went away in the boat, as near as I can say.
Senator BURTON. How long did you see this stern light?
BOXHALL: I saw it until I pulled around the ship's stern. I had laid off a little while on the port side, on which side I was lowered, and then I afterwards pulled around the ship's stern, and, of course, then I lost the light, and I never saw it anymore.
Senator BURTON. Her course, as she came on, would have been nearer to your course that is, your course, was ahead, there, and she was coming in toward your course?
BOXHALL: Yes, sir; she was slightly crossing it, evidently. I suppose she was turning around slowly.
Senator BURTON. Is it your idea that she turned away?
BOXHALL: That is my idea, sir.
Senator BURTON: She kept on a general course toward the east, and then bore away from
you, or what?
BOXHALL: I do not think she was doing much steaming. I do not think the ship was
steaming very much, because after I first saw the masthead lights she must have been still
steaming, but by the time I saw her red light with my naked eye she was not steaming very
much. So she had probably gotten into the ice, [The ice was runing North-South, which would mean a ship blocked in approaching from the west; Boxhall says westerly heading: sorry and all!) and turned around.
Senator BURTON: What do you think happened after she turned around? Do you think she went away to avoid the ice?
BOXHALL: I do not know whether she stayed there all night, or what she did. I lost the light. I did not see her after we pulled around to the starboard side of the Titanic.
Senator BURTON: Then you lost track of her?
BOXHALL: Yes.
Senator BURTON: And you saw her no more after that?
BOXHALL: No, sir. As a matter of fact, Capt. Smith was standing by my side, and we
both came to the conclusion that she was close enough to be signaled by the Morse lamp. So I
signaled to her. I called her up, and got no answer. The captain said, "Tell him to come at once, we are sinking." So I sent that signal out, "Come at once, we are sinking."
Senator BURTON: And you kept firing up those rockets?
BOXHALL: Then leaving off and firing rockets. There were a lot of stewards and men standing around the bridge and around the boat deck. Of course, there were quite a lot of them quite interested in this ship, looking from the bridge, and some said she had shown a light in reply, but I never saw it. I even got the quartermaster who was working around with me - I do not know who he was - to fire off the distress signal, and I got him to also signal with the Morse lamp - that is just a series of dots with short intervals of light - whilst I watched with a pair of glasses to see whether this man did answer, as some people said he had replied.
Senator BURTON: You saw nothing of the hull of the boat?
BOXHALL: Oh, no; it was too dark. I have already stated, in answer to a question, how far this ship was away from us, that I thought she was about 5 miles, and I arrived at it in this way. The masthead lights of a steamer are required by the board of trade regulations to show for 5 miles, and the signals are required to show for 2 miles.
Senator BURTON: You could see that distance on such a night as this?
BOXHALL: I could see quite clearly.
Senator BURTON: You are very sure you are not deceived about seeing these lights?
BOXHALL: Not at all.
Senator BURTON. You saw not only the mast light but the side lights?
BOXHALL: I saw the side lights. Whatever ship she was had beautiful lights. I think we could see her lights more than the regulation distance, but I do not think we could see them 14 miles.
(Samuel? you at least must be infallible?)

BRITISH INQUIRY

Boxhall: I was unlacing covers on the port side myself and I saw a lot of men come along–the watch I presume. They started to screw some out on the after part of the port side, I was just going along there and seeing all the men were well established with their work, well under way with it, and I heard someone report a light, a light ahead I went on the bridge and had a look to see what the light was.
15386 Someone reported a light ahead? – Yes I do not know who reported it. There were quite a lot of men on the bridge at the time.
15387 Did you see the light? – Yes, I saw a light.
15388 What sort of light was it? – It was two masthead lights of a steamer But before I saw
this light I went to the chart-room and worked out the ship's position.
15392. And then you saw this light which you say looked like a masthead light? – Yes, it was two masthead lights of a steamer.
15393. Could you see it distinctly with the naked eye? – No, I could see the light with the
naked eye, but I could not define what it was, but by the aid of a pair of glasses I found it was the two masthead lights of a vessel, probably about half a point on the port bow, and in the
position she would be showing her red if it were visible, but she was too far off then.
15394. Could you see how far off she was? – No, I could not see, but I had sent in the meantime for some rockets, and told the Captain I had sent for some rockets, and told him I would send them off, and told him when I saw this light. He said, “Yes, carry on with it.” I was sending rockets off and watching this steamer. Between the time of sending the rockets off and
watching the steamer approach us I was making myself generally useful round the port side of
the deck.
15400. Did you watch the lights of this steamer while you were sending the rockets up? – Yes.
15401. Did they seem to be stationary? – I was **paying most of my attention to this steamer
then**, and she was approaching us; and then I saw her side lights. I saw her green light and the red. She was end on to us. Later I saw her red light. This is all with the aid of a pair of glasses up to now. Afterwards I saw the ship's red light with my naked eye, and the two masthead lights. The only description of the ship that I could give is that she was, or I judged her to be, a four-masted steamer.
15402. Why did you judge that? – By the position of her masthead lights; they were close
together.
15403. Did the ship make any sort of answer, as far as you could see, to your rockets? – I did not see it. Some people say she did, and others say she did not. There were a lot of men on the bridge. I had a Quartermaster with me, and the Captain was standing by, at different times,
watching this steamer.
15404. Do you mean you heard someone say she was answering your signals? – Yes, I did,
and then she got close enough, and I Morsed to her– used our Morse lamp.
15405. You began Morsing to her? – Yes.
15406. When people said to you that your signals were being answered, did they say how they were being answered? – I think I heard somebody say that she showed a light.
15407. Do you mean that she would be using a Morse lamp? – Quite probably.
15408. Then you thought she was near enough to Morse her from the Titanic? – Yes, I do
think so; I think so yet. (Oh Samuel! Oh Daves!)
15409. (Lord Mersey) What distance did you suppose her to be away? – I judged her to be between 5 and 6 miles when I Morsed to her, and then she turned round – she was turning
very, very slowly–until at last I only saw her stern light, and that was just before I went away
in the boat.
15410. (Mr. Raymond Asquith.) Did she make any sort of answer to your Morse signals? – I
did not see any answer whatever.
15411. Did anyone else, so far as you know, see an answer? – Some people say they saw
lights, but I did not.
15412. Did they think they saw them Morsing in answer to your Morse signals; did anyone say that? – They did not say she Morsed, but they said the showed a light. Then I got the
Quartermaster who was with me to call her up with our lamps, so that I could use the glasses to
see if I could see signs of any answer; but I could not see any.
15413. You could not see any with the glasses? – No; and Captain Smith also looked, and he could not see any answer.
15414. He also looked at her through the glasses? – Yes.
15415. After a. time you saw what you took to be the stern light of a ship? – It was the stern
light of the ship.
15416. Did you infer from that that the ship was turned round, and was going in the opposite
direction? – Yes.
15417. When you first saw her, I understand you to say she was approaching you? – She was approaching us, yes.
15418. For about how long did you signal before it seemed to you that she turned round? – I
cannot say; I cannot judge any of the times at all.

Goodnight, girls.

 

[Senan Molony]

Dave Billnitzer:

"Senan's diagram above is almost precisely that given by Padfield (see p 205 of "The Titanic and the Californian, 1965 ed)."

The relevant page is given above.

"Almost precisely," eh? Yeah, I can really see it now... Doh!

 

[John Knight]

Ok as nobody answered my questions I will answer them myself;
From the American enquiry;

Mr. LORD. When I came off the bridge, at half past 10, I pointed out to the officer that I thought I saw a light coming along, and it was a most peculiar light, and we had been making mistakes all along with the stars, thinking they were signals. We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm. He said he thought it was a star, and I did not say anything more. I went down below. I was talking with the engineer about keeping the steam ready, and we saw these signals coming along, and I said "There is a steamer passing. Let us go to the wireless and see what the news is." But on our way down I met the operator coming, and I said, "Do you know anything?" He said, "The Titanic."

So, then, I gave him instructions to let the Titanic know. I said, "This is not the Titanic; there is no doubt about it." She came and lay at half past 11, alongside of us until, I suppose, a quarter past, within 4 miles of us. We could see everything on her quite distinctly, see her lights. We signaled her, at half past 11, with the Morse lamp. She did not take the slightest notice of it. That was between half past 11 and 20 minutes to 12. We signaled her again at 10 minutes past 12, half past 12, a quarter to 1 o'clock. We have a very powerful Morse lamp. I suppose you can see that about 10 miles, and she was about 4 miles off, and she did not take the slightest notice of it. When the second officer came on the bridge, at 12 o'clock ,or 10 minutes past 12, I told him to watch that steamer, which was stopped, and I pointed out the ice to him; told him we were surrounded by ice; to watch the steamer that she did not get any closer to her. At 20 minutes to 1 I whistled up the speaking tube and asked him if she was getting any nearer. He said, "No; she is not taking any notice of us." So, I said "I will go and lie down a bit." At a quarter past he said, "I think she has fired a rocket." He said, "She did not answer the Morse lamp and she has commenced to go away from us." I said, "Call her up and let me know at once what her name is. So, he put the whistle back, and, apparently, he was calling. I could hear him ticking over my head. Then l went to sleep.

Senator SMITH. You heard nothing more about it?

Mr. LORD. Nothing more until about something between then and half past 4, I have a faint recollection of the apprentice opening the room door; opening it and shutting it. I said "What is it?" He did not answer and I went to sleep again. I believe the boy came down to deliver me the message that this steamer had steamed away from us to the southwest, showing several of these flashes or white rockets; steamed away to the southwest.

----------------------------------------------

The witness was duly sworn by Senator Smith.
Senator SMITH. What is your full name?

Mr. GILL. Ernest Gill.

Senator SMITH. Where do you live?

Mr. GILL. Liverpool, England.

Senator SMITH. How old are you?

Mr. GILL. Twenty-nine.

Senator SMITH. What is your business?

Mr. GILL. Second donkeyman on the steamship Californian.

Senator SMITH. I want to read to you the following statement and ask you whether it is true:


I, the undersigned, Ernest Gill, being employed as second donkeyman on the steamer Californian, Capt. Lloyd [Lord], give the following statement of the incidents of the night of Sunday, April 14: I am 29 years of age; native of Yorkshire, single. I was making my first voyage on the Californian. On the night of April 14 I was on duty from 8 p. m. until 12 in the engine room. At 11.56 I came on deck. The stars were shining brightly. It was very clear and I could see for a long distance. The ship's engines had been stopped since 10.30 and she was drifting amid floe Ice. I looked over the rail on the starboard side and saw the lights of a very large steamer about 10 miles away. I could see her broadside lights. I watched her for fully a minute They could not have helped but see her from the bridge and lookout. It was now 12 o'clock and I went to my cabin. I woke my mate, William Thomas. He heard the ice crunching alongside the ship and asked, "Are we in the ice?" I replied, "Yes but it must be clear off to the starboard, for I saw a big vessel going along full speed. She looked as if she might be a big German." I turned in but could not sleep. In half an hour I turned out, thinking to smoke a cigarette. Because of the cargo I could not smoke 'tween decks, so I went on deck again.
I had been on deck about 10 minutes when I saw a white rocket about 10 miles away on the starboard side. I thought it must be a shooting star. In seven or eight minutes I saw distinctly a second rocket in the same place, and I said to myself, "That must be a vessel in distress."

It was not my business to notify the bridge or the lookouts; but they could not have helped but see them. I turned in immediately after, supposing that the ship would pay attention to the rockets. I knew no more until I was awakened at 6.40 by the chief engineer, who said, "Turn out to render assistance. The Titanic has gone down."

I exclaimed and leaped from my bunk. I went on deck and found the vessel under way and proceeding full speed. She was clear of the field ice, but there were plenty of bergs about.

I went down on watch and heard the second and fourth engineers in conversation. Mr. J. C. Evans is the second and Mr. Wooten is the fourth. The second was telling the fourth that the third officer had reported rockets had gone up in his watch. I knew then that it must have been the Titanic I had seen.

The second engineer added that the captain had been notified by the apprentice officer whose name, I think, is Gibson, of the rockets. The skipper had told him to Morse to the vessel in distress. Mr. Stone, the second navigating officer, was on the bridge at the time, said Mr. Evans.

I overheard Mr. Evans say that more lights had been shown and more rockets went up. Then, according to Mr. Evans, Mr. Gibson went to the captain again and reported more rockets. The skipper told him to continue to Morse until he got a reply. No reply was received.

The next remark I heard the second pass was, "Why in the devil they didn't wake the wireless man up?" The entire crew of the steamer have been talking among themselves about the disregard of the rockets. I personally urged several to join me in protesting against the conduct of the captain, but they refused, because they feared to lose their jobs.

A day at two before the ship reached port the skipper called the quartermaster, who was on duty at the time the rockets were discharged, into his cabin. They were in conversation shout three-quarters of an hour. The quartermaster declared that he did not see the rockets.

I am quite sure that the Californian was less than 20 miles from the Titanic, which the officers report to have been our position. I could not have seen her if she had been more than 10 miles distant and I saw her very plainly.

I have no ill will toward the captain or any officer of the ship, and I am losing a profitable berth by making this statement. I am actuated by the desire that no captain who refuses or neglects to give aid to a vessel in distress should be able to hush up the men.

ERNEST GILL
Sworn and subscribed to before me this 24th day of April, 1912.
[SEAL] SAMUEL PUTNAM,
Notary Public.



I will ask you, witness, whether this statement is true?

Mr. GILL. Yes, sir; that is correct.
-------------------------------
British enquiry; Capt. S Lord.

6717. And you saw a steamer's light. Was it approaching you? - It was approaching me from the eastward.

6718. How did it bear? - I did not get the bearings of it; I was just noticing it casually from the deck.

6719. Where was it? On your quarter? - It was on the starboard side.

6720. What did you see - what light? - I just saw a white light to commence with.

6721. Did you then ask your wireless operator what ships he had? - Yes, I went to his room and I asked him what ships he had.

6722. That means from what ships he had had messages? - What ships he had been in communication with.

6723. What did he say? - "Nothing, only the 'Titanic.'"

6724. Did you think that the vessel approaching you was the "Titanic"? - No, I remarked at the time that was not the "Titanic."

6725. How could you tell that? - You can never mistake those ships - by the blaze of light.

6726. I am not quite sure that I understand you - you told us you had seen one light? - First.

6727. Then as she was approaching you, did you see more? - I saw more lights.

6728. Did you see any sidelights? - I saw a green light.

6729. And did you see any deck lights? - A few.

6730. It was sufficiently close for that? - Oh, yes, she was getting closer all the time.

6731. About what distance approximately did you consider she was from you? - At 11 o'clock?

6732. I was going to ask you the distance at the time this conversation took place, and you said it was not the "Titanic"? - I suppose she was six or seven miles away. That is only approximately.

The Commissioner: What lights did you see at the time this conversation was taking place.

6733. (The Attorney-General.) I thought that was what he was saying. (To the Witness.) Will you tell us what lights you saw at the time you had this conversation with the Marconi operator? - I saw one masthead light and a few other white lights, but I do not say I noticed the green light then; I was not paying a great deal of attention to her.

6734. (The Commissioner.) Were the white lights bearing from east on your starboard side? - Coming from the eastward on our starboard side, my Lord.

6735. And you saw some other lights. What were they? - They might have been anything - lights from the portholes, doorways, or anything at all.

6736. But no coloured light? - I did not notice any then.

The Commissioner: I understand it now.

6737. (The Attorney-General.) You said it was not the "Titanic." Did you give him any directions? Did you tell him to let the "Titanic" know? - I said, "Let the 'Titanic' know that we are stopped, surrounded by ice."

6738. Do you remember at what time that message was sent? - About 11 o'clock.

6739. About 11 o'clock that night, ship's time? - Ship's time.

6740. Did you hear whether that message was acknowledged by the "Titanic"? - Not until the next day.

6741. It was not reported to you till the next day? - No.

6742. What was the report given to you? - That he told him to keep out - stand by; that he was busy with Cape Race. That is what I understood the message.

6743. You heard that from your Marconi operator, I suppose? - Yes.

6744. That an answer had been received from the "Titanic"? - Yes, telling him to keep out - that he was busy.

6745. What is the meaning of "keep out"? - Well, do not interrupt him.

6746. Do not interrupt because he, the "Titanic" operator, was busy? - Was busy.

6747. I think I understood you to say he was getting into touch with Cape Race? - That is what they were doing, I think; they were signaling with Cape Race.

6748. (The Commissioner.) "We are busy getting into touch with Cape Race"? - They were communicating with Cape Race then.

6749. (The Attorney-General.) I am going to call the operator, my Lord. (To the Witness.) Did you continue to watch the approaching, vessel? - Yes.

6750. Till what time? - Half-past 11. I was standing on deck watching it.

6751. All this time you were stopped? - We were stopped.

6752. What size steamer did she appear to you - can you give us some idea? - She was something like ourselves.

6753. Something like yourselves? - Yes.

6754. Medium size? - A medium size steamer.

6755. Did you see your Third Officer attempt to communicate with him? - I did.

6756. How? - By a Morse lamp.

6757. A Morse lamp? - Yes.

6758. Did he get any reply? - No.

6759. By this time had you been able to detect her sidelights at all? - I could see her green light then.

6760. How far do you judge she was when you could see her green light? - Well, I saw it some time between 11 and half-past; I do not know exactly.

6761. What distance do you think she was from you when you could see the lights? - About five miles.

6762. As much as that? - About that, I should think.

6763. Did you give any directions to your Second Officer with reference to this ship? - After the Second Officer relieved the deck.

6764. At what time did he relieve the deck? - Ten minutes past 12.

6765. Just before that was there any other Officer on deck? - The Third Officer was on deck until 12.

6766. With you? - Well, I was up and down off the bridge till 12 o'clock.

6767. Then at 12 o'clock the Second Officer relieved the Third Officer? - Ten minutes past 12.

6768. You were still on deck? - Yes.

6769. And did you tell him anything with regard to this vessel? - I told him to watch that steamer - that she was stopped.

6770. She was stopped? - The other steamer was stopped.

6771. When did you notice the other steamer was stopped? - About half-past 11.

6772. And he was to let you know if she did what? - If she altered her bearings or got any closer to us - drifted towards us.

6773. Did the ice extend at all to the eastward or westward of you? - It, seemed to me to be running more north and south, but whilst we were stopped we were surrounded by loose ice.

6774. From north to south was the field? - Yes.

6775. Then when you stopped you got surrounded by the loose ice? - I ran into the loose ice before I could stop - before the ship was brought up.

6776. There was ice between you and this vessel? - Yes.

6777. And then you noticed this vessel had stopped at half-past 11, presumably also on account of the ice? - On account of the ice.

6778. Can you tell us at all how this ship was heading? - She was heading to the westward, that is all I can tell you.

6779. Could you tell her bearing at all? - Well, I have heard it since. I heard what it was at midnight - S.S.E. from us by compass.

6780. That was at midnight? - Yes.

6781. (The Commissioner.) Was the compass correct? - No.

6782. (The Attorney-General.) What variation? - The variation that day at noon was 24 3/4. She was about 24 when we were stopped; the deviation would be about 2E, making an error of 22W.

The Commissioner: Are these minute particulars of importance?

6783. (The Attorney-General.) No, I do not think they are, my Lord. (To the Witness.) Did you speak to the Second Officer again later about going down below? - I went into the chart room at a quarter-past 12.

6784. Is that below? - No, it is on the bridge deck, just below the upper bridge.

6785. Then did you speak to him through the speaking tube? - At 20 minutes to 1.

6786. Did he say whether she had changed her position? - I asked him if the steamer was the same. He said it was the same; he had called her up once, but she would not reply to him.

6787. Then you went to lie down in the chart room? - Yes, I told him I was going to lie down in the chart room then.

6788. A little later did he whistle down the tube and tell you she was altering her bearings? - A quarter-past 1.

6789. Did he say how she was altering her bearings? - Towards the S.W.

6790. Did he tell you whether he had seen any signal? - He said he saw a white rocket.

6791. From her? - From her.

6792. A white rocket? - Yes.
6793. (The Commissioner.) She did not change until what time? - A quarter-past 1 it was reported to me first.

6794. And then what was her bearing? - She was altering it slightly towards the S.W.

6795. It was then that you saw the rocket? - It was then that we saw the rocket.

6796. Did you see it? - No.

6797. The Second Officer saw it? - The Second Officer saw it.
-----------------------------

Both the above I have copied from ET files.

 

[Dave Gittins]

This is as good as a circus!

"Why do Dave, Dave, Samuel, Paul etc not address the fact that Californian was stationary from 10.21pm to 6am?"

Because Californian was NOT stationary from 10-21pm to 6am.

Such a thing is a physical impossibility, as anybody with any real knowledge of the sea knows.

Captain Lord played with words and hoped not to be caught out. Stationary relative to the water was possible, granted no wind and/or current. Stationary relative to the bottom was impossible in the presence of one or both factors. On Lord's own evidence, there was wind. Also on Lord's own evidence, plus other proofs, there was current. Therefore Californian moved overnight, and by quite a few miles.

At this stage, I am not prepared to make public all my work on the Californian affair. I'll only say that the evidence against Lord, including the strong possibility of falsified navigation, is overwhelming. Best of all, most of it is from his own testimony.

As for extra ships, what should be done with their captains and officers when they are identified? Exhume them and prosecute them for ignoring distress signals? Or should they be rewarded fro being the only seamen in history capable of keeping their mouths shut?

 

[Paul Lee]

Senan wrote:
Paul Lee, if you are interested in being badgered, maybe you should become a "Lordite." My "notion that two ships 17 miles away couldn't see each other's lights" is perfectly correct. Your continued demonstrations of your idiocy in this regard are most welcome.

Idiocy? hardly. The RMS Titanic Inc memorial cruise in the 1990s had two ships this distance apart and the two ships COULD be seen.