The Mount Temple


Adam

Member
Aug 26, 2009
2
0
31
Hello All,

Recently I have been reading in many books, that the MT Temple may have actually been able to get to the Titanic in time, I find this quite interesting and I would like to know more if anyone could tell me some more then just basic information then I would love to hear it (Basic meaning something Like "No the Mt Temple couldn't have made it" please make it detailed) Thanks!!
 
Dec 12, 1999
1,002
3
0
Adam - -
You should check out Captain Moore's testimony on this site. He says he ended up on the other side of a huge ice pack from Carpathia and Californian. Thus, he couldn't have made it to get the Titanic's passengers. The matter I found interesting about Mount Temple is that it was a passenger ship that could carry some 1,460 steerage passengers. However, it was only 6,000 gross tons, compared to approximately 47,000 for Titanic. Mount Temple's passengers must have been packed in like sardines!
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,039
292
353
The story you have picked up came from a disgruntled Mount Temple passenger named Dr F C Quitzrau or Quitsrau, who concocted a tale, the main part of which said, "Orders were immediately given and the Mount Temple course changed, heading straight for the Titanic. About 8 o'clock New York time, 2 o'clock ship's time, the Titanic was sighted by some of the officers and crew; that as soon as the Titanic was seen all lights on the Mount Temple were put out and the engines stopped and the boat lay dead for about two hours; that as soon as day broke the engines were started and the Mount Temple circled the Titanic's position, the officers insisting that this be done, although the captain had given orders that the boat proceed on its journey."

Quitzrau can be shown to be lying on many grounds and his story can be discounted. The real reason Mount Temple did not arrive in time to help was simply her limited speed.

For me the interesting thing about Mount Temple is that she was the only ship to get close to the SOS position, which Boxhall had incorrectly calculated. Captain Moore told Boxhall afterwards that his position was wrong, but he was ignored. Years later Moore was vindicated by Robert Ballard. See my site at http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins for the true story of Mount Temple and her brave but forgotten captain.
 
W

Walt Thomas

Guest
This looks like a really old thread but I have a question. From what I thought it was the California that was close to Titanic and saw her rockets, but there's a new book on Amazon I was thinking of getting called Titanic Scandal The Trial of the Mt. Temple.

Was there a Mt. Temple trial? I never heard of it is all.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
15
161
Dublin
Excuse me, Sam Halpern, your characterisation is a grave misrepresentation of my book

The book is not a 'fictionalisation.' The sub-title "The Trial of the Mount Temple" is a format used to present ALL the evidence, factual and inferred, about this vessel. No point in Captain Moore's favour is left out because he has his own 'counsel' making them on his behalf. Above all, it is fair.

It contains an immense amount of new material, both in terms of images of the ship and other ship, internal pictures, records of the Mount Temple, and the identification - with photographs - of actual members of her crew on that voyage, and actual passengers aboard here.

There are the first pictures of Dr F. C. Quitrau, who submitted an affidavit of allegations to the US Inquiry. His story is told for the first time.

Officer W. H. Baker is proven for the first time to have been aboard - he later in 1912 contacted Captain Lord to tell him what he had learned on the homeward voyage. Baker's photograph/s are shown. This was a man decorated for gallantry who took a lifeboat to the assistance of the burning 'Volturno' in 1913.

With pictures of a crewman who went to the newspapers, plus other authentic passengers who did so, it is shown where these allegations are *supported,* as well as where points can be made gainsaying them.

Your attitude I find deplorable - especially since this book contains well over 100 new photographs never published anywhere before, of real people associated with this disaster. All the actual hard evidence about the Mount Temple is there.

You may remember I recommended you actually read it when we breakfasted in Boston following that debate between us at the Titanic International Society, even if you understandably might not care to remember that encounter when you failed to convince delegates of your point of view.

I note your own so-called "re-appraisal" fails to carry out any independent research with a view to breaking new ground. There are no new photographs, just the use of low-res images obtained and produced by others long before.

Furthermore, for someone who purports to consider all the evidence, I would point to your failure to address the fact that Titanic saw sidelights on her mystery ship, and that Boxhall (who was unshakeable also in seeing a *moving* ship, equally ignored and omitted) found the idea of sidelights being seen at 14 miles to be completely risible.
We know also that the mystery ship was displaying a red light when the Californian - the only vessel you ever want to address - was showing a green light to any ship to the southward. There are scores of further arguments that defeat your tired contentions.

Closing your mind to all other evidence, even the consideration of other vessels and evidence, and determination to force a round peg into a square peg - this is the real 'fictionalization.'

My book "Titanic Scandal: The Trial of the Mount Temple" has a hundred times more original research and demonstrated discoveries than anything I might cite from the whinging corner of wilful self-deceivers.
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,524
13
223
Oh dear.

I've not read your book, Senan, but I must say I've always regarded the Mount Temple with extreme suspicion for reasons I wouldn't care to argue, because I'm basically ignorant about it according to "experts" - but just, perhaps, because it all seems extremely fishy and there is just about sufficient evidence to support this view. However, I don't think that attacking Sam, who has proven his credentials, but who doesn't happen to think the same way as you because he thinks the evidence is lacking, is doing you, or your argument, any good.

And frankly, after 100 years, it's not likely that any further evidence will be forthcoming. It's highly unlikely the Titanic sank out of the view of other ships, given the traffic across the Atlantic. But nobody is going to be able to prove anything now.

Yeah ... I know I'm stupid ...
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,082
1,395
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
"Fictionalization: A literary work based partly or wholly on fact but written as if it were fiction."

Senan, you choose to call it a 'format' to present evidence, factual or inferred. But any trial that involves participants who have long since passed on is a creation in the mind of the author, even if based on evidence that is factual or perceived to be. But the fundamental fact is that no real trial ever took place, which is what was asked.

By the way, although I did not buy the book directly from you when I saw you in Boston, I did manage to pick up a copy of it and read it through. The photographs are great.
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,114
25
298
>Closing your mind to all other evidence, even the consideration of other vessels and evidence, and determination to force a round peg into a square peg - this is the real 'fictionalization.'

Sam- it's like trying to talk logic to a flat earther or a believer in crashed UFOS. You can't change their minds, so don't bother trying. Specious books are a problem which self-solves. With each one, the proponent of... risible conspiracy... squanders a bit more credibility, until even the most dedicated slackjaw stops buying the books and the cycle ends. When challenged, they tend to react like an aroused simian, shrieking and hurling feces. I would fondly advise you not to put yourself in the line of hurled feces. Camille Paglia, bless her, once declined to debate one of the more strident proponents of political correctness by saying that sharing the podium with that person would be as desirable for her as Caruso agreeing to perform a duet with Tiny Tim. Excellent words by which to live.

And, John Simon, bless him, once defended his reviewing Valley of the Dolls without having finished it, by saying "If I know the stew is rancid, must I continue eating it until I vomit?" And, so it was with Mount Temple. Unfinished.
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
6
111
Sam, what Monica and Jim have said is correct. It is not worth wasting your time trying to have a discussion with a person when their long track record shows they are utterly incapable of acting civil or decent to anyone who dares disagree with them, and aren't capable of being objective. When people react that way when evidence counter to their viewpoint is presented, or when someone has the audacity to publish a differing point of view, it says more about the strength of their case, or rather the lack thereof, than any lengthy discussion with them, with an inevitable barrage of venom being received, would yield. It is a tired old act on ET and elsewhere, and the person in question should realize what a disservice he has done himself and ET over the years, but it is what it is.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,767
961
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Dearie-me!

The man simply asked:

>>Was there a Mt. Temple trial? I never heard of it is all.<<

The answer 'No' would have been quite enough. Then there would have been no excuse or reason for Senan attacking Sam and consequently no reason to open old wounds.

Walt, I suggest that you buy the book and make your own mind up.
Perhaps once you have done so, you can come back and give us your opinions and comments together with any questions you might have about the subject!

I would suggest to all posters to this and other threads that they remember the caution: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I for one have no illusions so will keep my hands firmly in my pockets.

JC
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,524
13
223
Well, my hands are deep in my pockets, Jim, as I thought I'd made clear. As regards opening old wounds etc., I find I have to keep reminding myself that although I regard all this as interesting, I don't find it of the first importance or worth getting into a fury about ... but clearly other people do. But then, I suppose if you've devoted all your spare time to an argument you tend to get heated if challenged. And all publicity is good, if you've got a book to sell. Has any brave soul officially reviewed it yet?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,767
961
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Yes Monica, you certainly did make it clear!

I think you probably hit the nail on the head with your reference to spare time.

I'm a very old codger with nothing else but spare time.
There is a wonderful bonus when you have spare time. You can devote some of it to thinking!

In addition, because old codgers become acutely aware of the value of time, unlike those who are young enough to think it is unlimited and squander it, us 'auld yins' tend to spend it (hopefully) very carefully.

Remember this everyone...time is probably one of the few thing you cannot get a credit card for!

JC

PS Here's a punt for my wife's latest Book 'The other Munros'
Has any brave sould officially reviewed that yet?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
627
483
Easley South Carolina
>>I don't find it of the first importance or worth getting into a fury about ...<<

I don't either, although not for any of the reasons some might think. For my own money, the whole Californian fiasco is a massive distraction from the real issues surrounding why the Titanic got into trouble in the first place. The sins of Lord & Company, real and/or imagined, had nothing to do with any of that.
 
Jan 4, 2007
47
1
86
Monica:

Try inter-library loan . . . believe me it's worth it . . . it'll surely add to your knowledge of things Titanic. . . why all the knives came out, hacking away at Senan and his well thoughtout book, I have no idea . . . the book is marvelous

There are no wounds to open Monica . . . the wounds never healed . . . and they won't . . .
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,767
961
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hello all!

Since this is a brand new experience, why don't we wipe the slate clean and start again? If for nothing else... for the benefit of newcomers to the site!

I'll start the ball rolling!

I have always been a little uncomfortable about Captain Moore's narrative concerning the 2 hours prior to Mount Temple arriving on the scene.

I'm not suggesting she was the mystery ship but things just don't quite fit.

First I will use a time difference of 1 hour 46 minutes between the ships time and the time at New York.

Captain Moore said he first stopped for ice (later amending his story to slowing down for it) at 03-25am (01:39am NY).
The he said he proceeded slowy toward Titanic's distress position and arrived there about 4-30am (02:44am NY).
However, th process verbal of his wireless operator showed that the ship was stopped at 04:46am (03:00am NY) and did not start moving for another 20 minutes when she backed out of the ice at 5-06am.
Two hours later, at 7:06am (05:20am) the SS Californian was very near to Mount Temple, and passed to the east of her 20 minutes later at about 07:26am. 05:40NY).

Is it possible that Mount Temple was stopped near the the eastern edge of the ice field at 03:56am (02:10am NY)...21 minutes after he started slowing down for the ice?
Further: id it possible that he was further north than he thought he was and in fact, the 4 masted ship with the yellow funnel seen to the south of Californian was in fact, Mount Temple?
If there was such a ship to the south of Californian at that time, then since the ice filed was trending southeast, and 3 to 5 miles wide, a ship to the south might just well be on the west side of the ice field and between 5.5 an 8 miles away.

Jim C.
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
2
73
Iowa, USA
I have no problem starting over with discussion, as long as well keep all the old thread from 1999-present for reference. I'm always looking for a good read when I have some down time, and there are lots of knowledgeable people on this site that have contributed so much information, it'd be a pity to lose it.

I'd have to read up on the Mt. Temple, of course, but if she was "just" on the other side of the ice field, and "only had to stop" because her company policy forbade the ship from going into ice infested waters, than wouldn't the mere fact that she was a trans-Atlantic steamer be a hazard unto its-self?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,767
961
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hello Jake!

Ice was and still is a hazzard to a ship.

When I write 'clean slate', I did not mean to wipe clean all that had been written about Mount Temple to date. I was thinking more in terms of fresh thought! sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
Having said that, a fresh look at a problem without the influence of pre-conceived ideas sometimes opens-up new avenues of exploration.
In addition, hopefully there will be newcomers to this site who have just caught the 'Titanic virus'. These might just look at the problem in a unique way and stumulate the debate. That's what I hoped to do with a re-examination of jsy two hours in the life of Captain Moore.

Jim C.
 

Martin Cooper

Member
Dec 13, 2007
135
2
111
Hi Jim.

I have not been on for a while, it was to wish everyone a merry Christmas and Happy New Year the last time I logged into the site, and it is now March, so it is just over 3 months since I last logged into the site. This is a new way of doing things, but I suppose we will all get used to doing it. I hope all the old threads are still available, so that we can still go back and find some interesting stuff. Hope that you are keeping well Jim, and that everyone is behaving themselves, ha ha.

Best regards.

Martin.
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
2
73
Iowa, USA
Hi Martin;

RMS Titanic Discussions - Topics - Encyclopedia Titanica Message Board

Here's the link to the old board. Not sure if Phil will link the two sites, but I hope he does. Lots of good information there.

Jim-

I knew that, but what I meant was that I would assume and hope that ships made to travel the North Atlantic would be made of stronger steel then say, ships built to travel the warmer routes, such as to the Azores. Of course, I'd hope a ship would be made with strong steel regardless, since they seem to interchange often, such as when they change company hands.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads