The Mount Temple


Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,056
1,100
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Your explanation, Jim, in post 314 above seems to deliberately have Californian taking a longer route to reach Carpathia by first heading down SSE then turning ENE so it can fit the evidence of Rorstron's sighting of C to the WSW.. If she spotted Carpathia as you show, and if the ice looked as you show, then why wouldn't Lord head straight for her until reaching the edge of the ice, turn perpendicular to the ice and then cross using the shortest distance, then head straight for Carpathia upon clearing the eastern side as I show (in black) below using your diagram? You also show MT stopped 5 miles away from your ice barrier. Why is that? And by the way, in Lord's Hydrographic office report he wrote: "encountered heavy packed field ice, extending north and south as far as the eye could see and about 5 miles wide; also numerous bergs could be seen."

View attachment 75173
It doesn't "Seem" to fit Rostron's evidence, Sam ii corresponds to it.

A; Why would Rostron specifically use a corrected, i.e. True bearing.
and
B: You seem to be the one who is" fitting", since your above amendment is obviously designed to fit Captain Moore's estimate of the width of the barrier (not the field).

What you fail to consider, or perhaps understand is the process of finding a way through pack ice. You don't just batter your way through it, you send a man aloft with a pair of glasses to look for what is known as a "lead" throught the ice. A lead is an area of the pack which has fissures and perhaps the odd little pool of open water.
Californian did not have an ice breaker bow, Sam. Full speed through a solid barrier would have resulted in a real problem.
lead.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,056
1,100
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Again, your drawing has MT stopped about 5 miles from the ice pack. Now why is that? It's interesting how Californian was able to find a lead through the ice according to you when Carpathia was abeam, but two other vessels did not.
I told you why, Sam.
Moore obtained a PV position just before 6am. at that moment, he knew he was on a position line. he was also heading north and tells us so.
He even tells you in a round about way that at some time, he was "8" miles not degrees, of longitude west of the Carpathia.
8 miles of longitude in that latitude is equal to 11 minutes of longitude which subtracted from 50-09 W puts Carpathia at longitude 49-58' W. Surprise-surprise! he was only 0.7 miles out since the Longitude of Titanic's wreck is at 49-57'W.

It is not in the least bit "interesting" about the choices of different captains, Sam. The Captain of the Birma chose to follow the contours of the field, not the pack ice.
The Captains of the Trautenfels and the Mesaba chose to go down the eastern sde.
However, none of these captains had a reason to find a lead. thrught the barrier. On the othr hand Lord of he Californian did.- he was on a rescue mission.
The captain of the Frankfurt went through at the same place that Californian had emerged from... sensible German Captain.
But aside from the foregoing-are you insinuating that Captain Rostron did not know how totake or correct a bearing?
Sure! Lord said he went through on a course of East. But why should you believe him about that when you don't believe him about anything else, Sam?
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,229
1,559
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Moore obtained a PV position just before 6am. at that moment, he knew he was on a position line. he was also heading north and tells us so.
He even tells you in a round about way that at some time, he was "8" miles not degrees, of longitude west of the Carpathia.
Mr. MOORE. ... and I had not seen anything of the Titanic and did not know exactly where she was; because I think, after all, the Titanic was farther east than she gave her position, or, in fact, I am certain she was.
Senator SMITH. East or south?
Mr. MOORE. East. sir.
Senator SMITH. How much farther away?
Mr. MOORE. I should think at least [my emphasis] 8 miles, sir, of longitude.

The SOS position was 50° 14'W. Subtract 11' (8 miles worth) and you get 50° 03'W. What Moore was saying is that Titanic must have not gone beyond 50° 03'W. Why? Prime vertical longitude of Moore was 50° 09.5'W, If Titanic was east of 50° 03'W, as Moore believed, then she sank at least 6.5 arcminutes (which translates to 5 miles) east of where Moore was that morning. Thus, he again was saying, indirectly this time, that the pack ice was about 5 miles wide at that point, which you refuse to believe, and that Titanic could not have gone further west than the eastern edge at 50° 03'W.

By the way, the prime vertical sight, which is when the sun was due east true, had to be taken about 10:06am GMT on that date and place. This would have been at 6:52am Mount Temple time.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,290
650
188
South Wales UK
I did try yesterday evening to post something on my iPhone but after partly typing it out I was inundated with adverts and the site went haywire, which as a paying forum member on here I found very strange.

Anyway, to reply to one of Mila's comments, I do believe myself that Captain Lord and Stewart's yellow funnelled steamer seen was the same ship earlier Stewart saw the lights of with Stone at 4am when it was dark. (ie the Carpathia, and at 4am the Mount Temple had arguably not yet got as close to either the Carpathia or The Californian).

I've wavered over this. The application of Sam's objective logic is persuasive as to it being the Mount Temple as it had a yellow funnel!

But there is so much more to this.

Captain Lord sought to implicate the Mount Temple shortly after he was forced to resign. Sam agrees that this was totally wrong, and shows that at the very least Captain Lord was mistaken and wrong to do this.

Then we also have The Almerian affair, when Captain Lord implicated a ship of his own Leyland Line.

Again, Sam shows how Captain Lord was mistaken or wrong to do this.

There must, to my mind, be a degree of consistency as to how one assesses the evidence of Captain Lord and Stewart... you cannot 'trash' Captain Lord over implicating the Mount Temple and The Almerian, and trash Stewart's Polar Star fix, and 'cooking' the Ships Log (which was a serious offence), and then to my way of thinking accept as gospel truth that what they identified as a yellow funnelled steamer as Day broke was the Mount Temple via their British Inquiry testimony.

Paul Lee's view is equally persuasive and an objective application of logic.

There is a lot more I could add as to why I believe Stewart and Captain Lord were looking at the Carpathia as Day broke.

Stewart thought it was the same ship whose lights he had seen in the dark with Stone at 4am. By implication it was in the same direction. It also wasn't the otherside of a wide ice field at that distance, which would be an obvious thing to observe and comment upon, and Stewart and Captain Lord never made any comment to this effect.

I don't know how you could around 4.30am to 5am that morning distinguish the colour of a funnel from some distance when they were looking at the shadowed side just as dawn was breaking.

I think one can construct a very strong argument that Captain Lord and Stewart lied over the funnel colour, and for very obvious reasons as explained by Paul Lee.

Sam's position ought to deal head on with Paul Lee's view that I myself find compelling.

If Sam can debunk Paul Lee's view then I might be further persuaded. Sam will have to deal with the dichotomy of trashing Captain Lord and Stewart's testimony in other respects, but considering them as truthful in their testimony on this one particular point.

Legally, my training was that when witnesses start lying, you call into question all of their evidence.

I mean no disrespect to Sam whatsoever for posting this, and it does not in my opinion call into question anything else that is in Sam's book or his previous research articles or the centennial reappraisal book.
 
Last edited:

Mila

Member
Sep 28, 2016
983
71
73
I did try yesterday evening to post something on my iPhone but after partly typing it out I was inundated with adverts and the site went haywire, which as a paying forum member on here I found very strange.

Anyway, to reply to one of Mila's comments, I do believe myself that Captain Lord and Stewart's yellow funnelled steamer seen was the same ship earlier Stewart saw the lights of with Stone at 4am when it was dark. (ie the Carpathia, and at 4am the Mount Temple had arguably not yet got as close to either the Carpathia or The Californian).

I've wavered over this. The application of Sam's objective logic is persuasive as to it being the Mount Temple as it had a yellow funnel!

But there is so much more to this.

Captain Lord sought to implicate the Mount Temple shortly after he was forced to resign. Sam agrees that this was totally wrong, and shows that at the very least Captain Lord was mistaken and wrong to do this.

Then we also have The Almerian affair, when Captain Lord implicated a ship of his own Leyland Line.

Again, Sam shows how Captain Lord was mistaken or wrong to do this.

There must, to my mind, be a degree of consistency as to how one assesses the evidence of Captain Lord and Stewart... you cannot 'trash' Captain Lord over implicating the Mount Temple and The Almerian, and trash Stewart's Polar Star fix, and 'cooking' the Ships Log (which was a serious offence), and then to my way of thinking accept as gospel truth that what they identified as a yellow funnelled steamer as Day broke was the Mount Temple via their British Inquiry testimony.

Paul Lee's view is equally persuasive and an objective application of logic.

There is a lot more I could add as to why I believe Stewart and Captain Lord were looking at the Carpathia as Day broke.

Stewart thought it was the same ship whose lights he had seen in the dark with Stone at 4am. By implication it was in the same direction. It also wasn't the otherside of a wide ice field at that distance, which would be an obvious thing to observe and comment upon, and Stewart and Captain Lord never made any comment to this effect.

I don't know how you could around 4.30am to 5am that morning distinguish the colour of a funnel from some distance when they were looking at the shadowed side just as dawn was breaking.

I think one can construct a very strong argument that Captain Lord and Stewart lied over the funnel colour, and for very obvious reasons as explained by Paul Lee.

Sam's position ought to deal head on with Paul Lee's view that I myself find compelling.

If Sam can debunk Paul Lee's view then I might be further persuaded. Sam will have to deal with the dichotomy of trashing Captain Lord and Stewart's testimony in other respects, but considering them as truthful in their testimony on this one particular point.

Legally, my training was that when witnesses start lying, you call into question all of their evidence.

I mean no disrespect to Sam whatsoever for posting this, and it does not in my opinion call into question anything else that is in Sam's book or his previous research articles or the centennial reappraisal book.
The only thing you need, Julian, is to read testimony of Stewart, in which he clearly confirmed that the ship he saw at 4 am and the ship he saw at daylight was the same ship.

8890. He told you that at 4 o'clock, and then you say you looked at it and you picked up the light?
- Yes.

8891. Was that the light of this four-masted one funnel steamer which you afterwards saw at daylight?
- Yes.


Now, think about why Stewart first said that he saw lots of lights on this steamer, and then tried to say that he saw only a few. It is because Stewart knew very well that he was looking at Carpathia, at 4 am. and at daylight, and he knew what it meant. Of course, at the time of the sighting he did not know what he was looking at but as soon as they reached the Carpathia, or even before that, he added 2 and 2 together. He came up with that yellow-funneled steamer because under low sun the funnel of Carpathia probably did look yellow (golden). It was a nice half-truth to say because he did not want to admit that Californian was only 8-10 miles away from the sinking Titanic. Stewart would have much rather said that 4 am steamer and daylight steamer were two different steamers, but he was afraid to lie so openly and so stupidly while under the oath. In other words, he lied safely in order not to get caught.

Compare these two testimonies by Groves and Stewart

Groves:

8324. What steamer was that?
- I did not know at the time, but I knew afterwards she was the "Carpathia."

Stewart:

8905. Is it in your mind at all that it was the "Carpathia" you saw?
- No; I thought it was a yellow funnel boat when the sun was up.

I assure you, if this steamer was not Carpathia, Stewart would have said so.



I am not sure, if you, Julian, realize that if you believe that the steamer seen at 4 and after sunrise was the same one (Carparhia), you should also agree that all calculations in Sam’s book in regards to the distance between Titanic and Californian are incorrect. BTW I could easily prove this.

Now, some could argue that it took Californian too long to get from her position to Carpathia, but who said Lord went there right away. Moore testified Californian was cruising:

When I get him [Californian] to confirm my position, I ask him if he can give me his position. I understand he is cruising, because after we go up toward him he goes to the south and misses us, passes about a mile off, and then he gets where we came from. Then we go over the ground, and we have not seen anything of the ship, and we think we must cruise on farther.

Do
we know for how long Lord was cruising there? No, we do not. So, the time it took for the Californian to reach the Carpathia is irrelevant. What is relevant it is the testimony of Groves about sighting of Carpathia around 6:50, the testimony of Moore about sighting the Californian somewhere after 6 and then at 7:10. Their testimonies agree perfectly with each other as well as they agree with the estimation of the distance between Californian and Carpathia before Californian started to navigate. Lord, Stewart, Bisset and probably Rostron said it was between 8 and 10 miles, and so it was.
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,056
1,100
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Mr. MOORE. ... and I had not seen anything of the Titanic and did not know exactly where she was; because I think, after all, the Titanic was farther east than she gave her position, or, in fact, I am certain she was.
Senator SMITH. East or south?
Mr. MOORE. East. sir.
Senator SMITH. How much farther away?
Mr. MOORE. I should think at least [my emphasis] 8 miles, sir, of longitude.

The SOS position was 50° 14'W. Subtract 11' (8 miles worth) and you get 50° 03'W. What Moore was saying is that Titanic must have not gone beyond 50° 03'W. Why? Prime vertical longitude of Moore was 50° 09.5'W, If Titanic was east of 50° 03'W, as Moore believed, then she sank at least 6.5 arcminutes (which translates to 5 miles) east of where Moore was that morning. Thus, he again was saying, indirectly this time, that the pack ice was about 5 miles wide at that point, which you refuse to believe, and that Titanic could not have gone further west than the eastern edge at 50° 03'W.

By the way, the prime vertical sight, which is when the sun was due east true, had to be taken about 10:06am GMT on that date and place. This would have been at 6:52am Mount Temple time.

I can emphasise too, Sam. Moore said "I should think". I know you "think", Sam, but I suggest you broaden your thoughts and stop working from point to point.
For a start off. Moore asks you to believe that he is as near as damnit is to swearing, at 41-46'N, 50-14'W and right up against the ice at 4-40 am that morning. We know that is wrong.
Then he tells you he goes south from that same position... up against the ice - and finds himself at 50-09'N, but not all the time up against the ice. If you look at my plot you will see that I have him close-to going south but well out from the edge going north. oIf you look at my plot you will see that I have him close-to going south but well out from the edge going north.
Otherwise how could Californian have passed a mile to the east between Mount Temple and another vessel stopped against the ice even farther to the east?
He also claims the barrier was 5 miles wide. and Carpathia was 3 miles to the east of its eastern side. 5 + 3 = 8 miles.
From the foregoing, it seems that our good captain got himself a little confused or successfully confused his questioners.
He knew by simple arithmetic that he had overshot the mark in the first place and discovered he was farther east than he thought he was when he obtained his longitude. When he went south at first, he could judge the distance from his ship to the Carpathia from where he was... 5 miles. of ice, It was after that when he established a true longitude. e voila!

Moore said: "I got a prime vertical sight; that is a sight taken when the sun is bearing due east. That position gave me 50º 91/2' west."
Utter rubbish! Sure, they got a PV sight, but the sun never would bear east in that latitude at that time of year. The declination was only 9 degrees 50 minutes North.
Wrong Prime vertical, Sam. Moore did say his officer was better qualified and the above utterance is proof.
An observer's prime vertical is a great circle from due East of an over the observer to due west of the observer. A Prime Vertical observation is taken at the moment the sun's center is a semi- diameter above the observer's horizon. At 42 N on April 15 1912, this would have occurred 5-19 am LMT (Local Mean Time).
True Longitude = Local Mean Time which in turn = Greenwich Mean time minus West Longitude .
It follows that if we know the exact difference between ship time and GMT and the GMT at the moment of Sunrise, we can calculate the longitude at that moment .
According to Sunrise and sunset times (location) Calculator, on April 15, 1912, sunrise at 41-46N 50-14 W occurred at 5-19am. This equates to a GMT of 8h 39min 56sec. If Mount Temple 's clocks were, as claimed by captain Moore...3 h 14 min SLOW of GMT(1hr-46min FAST of EST)...then the ship time of the observation was
GMT Sunrise: 8h-39min 56 sec.
Dif. ship time-GMT 3h 14min :
Ship time Sunrise 5h 25min 56 sec.
However, the foregoing is for 50-14'W. If they obtained a longitude of 50-09'W, then the difference between ship time and GMT used was 20 seconds out.
Incidentally, according to my own Almanac, on April 15, 1952, sunrise occurred at more or less the same time at 42N.
Just had another look at the evidence. The process verbal of the Mount Temple states that she started moving 15 minutes before sunrise. If she did and she was at 50-09' W and wenr south, then we have to look again at this very strange ship.
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,056
1,100
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I did try yesterday evening to post something on my iPhone but after partly typing it out I was inundated with adverts and the site went haywire, which as a paying forum member on here I found very strange.

Anyway, to reply to one of Mila's comments, I do believe myself that Captain Lord and Stewart's yellow funnelled steamer seen was the same ship earlier Stewart saw the lights of with Stone at 4am when it was dark. (ie the Carpathia, and at 4am the Mount Temple had arguably not yet got as close to either the Carpathia or The Californian).

I've wavered over this. The application of Sam's objective logic is persuasive as to it being the Mount Temple as it had a yellow funnel!

But there is so much more to this.

Captain Lord sought to implicate the Mount Temple shortly after he was forced to resign. Sam agrees that this was totally wrong, and shows that at the very least Captain Lord was mistaken and wrong to do this.

Then we also have The Almerian affair, when Captain Lord implicated a ship of his own Leyland Line.

Again, Sam shows how Captain Lord was mistaken or wrong to do this.

There must, to my mind, be a degree of consistency as to how one assesses the evidence of Captain Lord and Stewart... you cannot 'trash' Captain Lord over implicating the Mount Temple and The Almerian, and trash Stewart's Polar Star fix, and 'cooking' the Ships Log (which was a serious offence), and then to my way of thinking accept as gospel truth that what they identified as a yellow funnelled steamer as Day broke was the Mount Temple via their British Inquiry testimony.

Paul Lee's view is equally persuasive and an objective application of logic.

There is a lot more I could add as to why I believe Stewart and Captain Lord were looking at the Carpathia as Day broke.

Stewart thought it was the same ship whose lights he had seen in the dark with Stone at 4am. By implication it was in the same direction. It also wasn't the otherside of a wide ice field at that distance, which would be an obvious thing to observe and comment upon, and Stewart and Captain Lord never made any comment to this effect.

I don't know how you could around 4.30am to 5am that morning distinguish the colour of a funnel from some distance when they were looking at the shadowed side just as dawn was breaking.

I think one can construct a very strong argument that Captain Lord and Stewart lied over the funnel colour, and for very obvious reasons as explained by Paul Lee.

Sam's position ought to deal head on with Paul Lee's view that I myself find compelling.

If Sam can debunk Paul Lee's view then I might be further persuaded. Sam will have to deal with the dichotomy of trashing Captain Lord and Stewart's testimony in other respects, but considering them as truthful in their testimony on this one particular point.

Legally, my training was that when witnesses start lying, you call into question all of their evidence.

I mean no disrespect to Sam whatsoever for posting this, and it does not in my opinion call into question anything else that is in Sam's book or his previous research articles or the centennial reappraisal book.
Hello Julian,

The ideas that Carpathia and Californian were in sight of each other at 4 am that morning is unmitigated nonsense and here is why.
First of all have a look at this photograph of Carpathia:
1610641030705.png


First of all from shortly after 4 am, she would have been ablaze of lights from stem to stern. and if these lights were visible from Californian, could not have been more than 13 miles away.
Next, let's plot such a situation. The following is to scale
Plotting Carpathia.jpg


From the above, it is patently obvious that Carpathia could never have been abeam before 8-40 pm/ Yet, According to Captain Rostron of Carpathia, Californian was to the westward just before 8 am that morning.
I have demonstrated this without referring to a suingle witness from the Californian. Now do you and anyone else see that the ship seen by Stone, Stewart and Lord could never have been the Carpathia. Apart from the direction,,, the distances and relativity just do not compute.

As for Stewart seeing the colour of the nearby ship's funnel? Please read the evidence again. He stated: " it was a yellow funnel boat when the sun was up."
Californian did not get underway until after 5 am that morning, then just for a very short time before she stopped. She move southward, stopped and did not get underway again until long after the sun was up.
The sun rose at 5-19 am that morning by 6 am it was a brilliant sunny morning with the sun to the bearing about ESE and bathing the area to the south in bright light.
However, the Mount Temple did have a yellow funnel and she got underway again 15 minutes before sunrise. At that time, there ws plenty of bright day light and no real shadows.
However, there is also another problem with this evidence.
When an officer takes over the bridge on a stopped ship, he notes the heading and sweeps the horizon with his binoculars. He does that automatically. If Stewart said he saw a ship to the south then that is exactly what he meant. I have told Sam this already. If the ship in sight had been the Carpathia, she would have been to the SE, not Southward and abaft Californian's port beam.
Long before the hearings, on April 18, before much detail was known, Stone reported this to Lord:

"I took up the glasses and just made out a four-masted steamer with two masthead lights a little abaft our port beam, and bearing about S., we were heading about W.N.W. Mr. Stewart then took over the Watch and I went off the bridge.!
You can see on the plot what Stone was talking about

No way did these guys see the Carpathia at that early hour. All the available evidence contradicts it
 
Last edited:

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,563
238
128
15
Maryland, USA
Hello Julian,

The ideas that Carpathia and Californian were in sight of each other at 4 am that morning is unmitigated nonsense and here is why.
No offense my friend, but I think that is also nonsense.

-They saw rockets.
Your defense of falling stars doesn't make sense, (In my opinion) as survivors said there were thousands of falling stars that night. falling after she sank
-They, Gibson and Groves, saw the lights of a steamer, disappear at exactly 2:20am.
-they saw a steamer while Titanic was sinking, that Captain Smith even said, "Go row over there and tell them to ready their lifeboats" or something like that.
They saw the lights on the horizon, even as the Carpathia was firing rockets.

Not that I think Lord is guilty. He still readied his ship and sped over to the wreck site. But that's another subject for another day.

There was NO third ship, mystery ship. The Californian saw the Titanic, and the Titanic saw the Californian.

Have a great day, y'all!
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,056
1,100
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
No offense my friend, but I think that is also nonsense.

-They saw rockets.
Your defense of falling stars doesn't make sense, (In my opinion) as survivors said there were thousands of falling stars that night. falling after she sank
-They, Gibson and Groves, saw the lights of a steamer, disappear at exactly 2:20am.
-they saw a steamer while Titanic was sinking, that Captain Smith even said, "Go row over there and tell them to ready their lifeboats" or something like that.
They saw the lights on the horizon, even as the Carpathia was firing rockets.

Not that I think Lord is guilty. He still readied his ship and sped over to the wreck site. But that's another subject for another day.

There was NO third ship, mystery ship. The Californian saw the Titanic, and the Titanic saw the Californian.

Have a great day, y'all!
It doesn't make sense, Cam because youhave never seen a distress rocket fired at sea The old models fired in three stages
1 ignition flash and trail
2. flash- bang
3. stars
No.2 was todraw your attention and three was to keep it.
Like this:
rocket stages.jpg
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,229
1,559
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
A Prime Vertical observation is taken at the moment the sun's center is a semi- diameter above the observer's horizon.
You of all people should know that your statement above is incorrect.

384. Morning Sights.—The morning time sight and azimuth should be
observed, if possible, when the sun is on the prime vertical. As the body bears
east at that time, the resulting Sumner line is due north and south, and the longitude
will thus be obtained without an accurate knowledge of the latitude. Another
reason for so choosing the time is that near this point of the sun's apparent path
the body is changing most slowly in azimuth, and an error in noting the time will
have the minimum effect in its computed bearing. The time when the sun will be
on the prime vertical—that is, when its azimuth is 90°—may be found from the

azimuth tables or the azimuth diagram.

In fact, Moore stated: "Because when I got the position in the morning I got a prime vertical sight; that is a sight taken when the sun is bearing due east. That position gave me 50º 9 1/2' west. I got two observations. I took one before the prime vertical and on the prime vertical. We were steering north at the time, steering north to go around this pack again, to look out, to see if we could find a hole through the ice, and we took these two positions, and they both came within a quarter of a mile of each other; so that the Titanic must have been on the other side of that field of ice, and then her position was not right which she gave.

On 15 April 1912, at precisely 10:06 GMT at 41° 43' 30"N, 50° 09' 30"W, the sun was at an altitude of 14.9° and an azimuth of 090.2°.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,229
1,559
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Next, let's plot such a situation. The following is to scale
Sorry my friend, but your diagram is wrong. You show S by compass pointing toward SSW true? The magnetic variation in that area was about 24°W. According to Lord and Stewart, their compass deviation when Cal was facing westward was about 5°W. This makes the total compass error about 29°W.
1610655506543.png
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,290
650
188
South Wales UK
Mila,

Re your post 326, I don't think it at all follows that a difference of opinion over Stewart's yellow funnelled steamer requires me to re-assess my view of Sam's distances.

I've re-read Sam's book 'Strangers on the Horizon' many times, and I have read it looking at it both ways on the issues relating to The Mount Temple. As anyone trying to be objective must do - and I firmly believe that Sam has also approached his research with an objective stance.

Indeed, Sam and I both agree that certain previous research (that is very anti Captain Lord) cannot be justified/substantiated.

I don't think that Stewart's yellow funnelled steamer is particularly important in The Mount Temple saga.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,056
1,100
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
You of all people should know that your statement above is incorrect.

384. Morning Sights.—The morning time sight and azimuth should be
observed, if possible, when the sun is on the prime vertical. As the body bears
east at that time, the resulting Sumner line is due north and south, and the longitude
will thus be obtained without an accurate knowledge of the latitude. Another
reason for so choosing the time is that near this point of the sun's apparent path
the body is changing most slowly in azimuth, and an error in noting the time will
have the minimum effect in its computed bearing. The time when the sun will be
on the prime vertical—that is, when its azimuth is 90°—may be found from the

azimuth tables or the azimuth diagram.

In fact, Moore stated: "Because when I got the position in the morning I got a prime vertical sight; that is a sight taken when the sun is bearing due east. That position gave me 50º 9 1/2' west. I got two observations. I took one before the prime vertical and on the prime vertical. We were steering north at the time, steering north to go around this pack again, to look out, to see if we could find a hole through the ice, and we took these two positions, and they both came within a quarter of a mile of each other; so that the Titanic must have been on the other side of that field of ice, and then her position was not right which she gave.

On 15 April 1912, at precisely 10:06 GMT at 41° 43' 30"N, 50° 09' 30"W, the sun was at an altitude of 14.9° and an azimuth of 090.2°.
Oh but it is correct if the sun is bearing east true - on the prime vertical at sunrise. Moore did not calculate that PV observation, his 2/O did. In any case, it is easy to calculate the exact time when the sun is on the prime vertical if you know how and you have an accurate compass and know your chronometer error.
However, if you care to read on, you will find my last cautionary paragraph. That was not put there as an after thought.
In fact, in your Post 332, you are, in a round about way, confirming what I wrote about the Mount Temple's movements and what I have been pointing out to you all along.

According to the Mount Temple's PV, she backed out of the ice at 8-20 GMT If she did, then she was underway for 1 hour 46 minutes before she obtained her PV position at 10-06 GMT
Not only that, but as you quoted, Moore said " We were steering north at the time, steering north
". This places Mount Temple on Longitude 50-09'W at 10-06 GMT steering North.
Shortly after that, she stopped and at 10-20 GMT, Durrant answered a CQ from Evans on the Californian. She had come down from the north and had been at Full speed of 13 knots since about 10 am GMT. Now let's compile a GMT Log from the information available and see what it indicates.

Mount Temple.
GMT

8-00 All quiet; we're stopped amongst pack ice.
8-20 We back out of ice and cruise around. Large bergs about.
9-25 M.W.L. calls C.Q. I answer him and advise him of M.G.Y. and send him M.G.Y.'s position.
10-06 PV Position - 50-09'W... heading: North
10-20 Sigs. M.W.L.; wants my position; send it. We're very close.

Californian
GMT

8-25 W/O Evans called to find out about ship to the S.
8-35 Engine ahead.
???? Engine stopped
8-40 Signals with Frankfurt.
9-00 Signals with Virginian
9-05 Engine ahead -Commence ice barrier transit course to
steer S16W True.
9-35 Complete ice barrier transit Full Ahead,
9-45 All hands to stations.
10-20 Vessels sighted to the S , A/C to S.
10-50 Passed Mount Temple to the west . She is stopped
heading north.
11-01 Four mast vessel abeam to port.
11-14 Hard-a-starboard... commence ice barrier transit
11-28 Clear east side of the ice.
11-54 Stopped north of RMS Carpathia.

The above times are derived from the PVs of the Mount Temple and the Birma It is appreciated that they can only be approximate. However, they are sufficiently accurate to show that from 9-35 GMT until 10-50 GMT, Californian was running at a Full Speed estimated to be 13 Knots. Therefore if Mount Temple had not been stopped for the entire time and was steering northward at half speed and Californian was making southward, at full speed, then the two vessels were closing at a speed not less than 19 knots It follows that the latter had to have been at least 15 miles south of the Californian when she transited the ice for the first time.
In addition Californian did so at a very narrow angle. Consequently it would have been impossible for Captain Moore to have seen Californian transiting the ice for the first time.
Not only the foregoing, but if Californian passed a mile east of the stopped Mount Temple and there was another vessel even farther to the east against the ice, then you can be sure that Mount Temple when going South for the first time was about a mile West of that smaller vessel and at least 2 miles west of her going North and not as you suggest, closely following the west side of the ice barrier.
 

Mila

Member
Sep 28, 2016
983
71
73
Mila,

Re your post 326, I don't think it at all follows that a difference of opinion over Stewart's yellow funnelled steamer requires me to re-assess my view of Sam's distances.

I've re-read Sam's book 'Strangers on the Horizon' many times, and I have read it looking at it both ways on the issues relating to The Mount Temple. As anyone trying to be objective must do - and I firmly believe that Sam has also approached his research with an objective stance.

Indeed, Sam and I both agree that certain previous research (that is very anti Captain Lord) cannot be justified/substantiated.

I don't think that Stewart's yellow funnelled steamer is particularly important in The Mount Temple saga.
Julian,

Stewart’s yellow funneled steamer has zero impotence in the Mount Temple Saga because she was not the Mount Temple. She was the Carpathia, and that is why she is very important for the estimation of the distance between Titanic and Californian. 8-10 miles are not equal 12-14 miles. 12-14 miles are not equal 8-10 miles. These numbers do not not even overlap.


Two steamers located 12-14 miles apart cannot be located 8-10 miles apart and vice versa at the same time.

That is why Sam’s trigonometry to establish the distance between Titanic and Californian does not work.

Besides if an eyewitness testified that he saw the same steamer at 4 am. and after sunrise, and an author writes that this very eyewitness saw two different steamers and uses this allegation for an important calculation in his book, I am not sure how this author could be trusted in anything.
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,056
1,100
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Yes, it was pretty clear what Stone was taking about.
View attachment 75212


Compass heading WNW.....292.5
Deviation 5.0 W
Magnetic heading 287,5 M
Variation 24.0 W
True heading 263.5 T

Beam Bearing 173 True = S 1/2 E....Southerly
Stewart: .. Yes, I saw a steamer to the southward.
Stone : a little abaft our port beam, and bearing about S.,
Heading by Compass = 292.5 C
90.0
Abeam to port .200, 5C
Total error 29W
Abeam to port
171 True i.e S 3/4 E.

Your little diagram shows a bearing of South East-True Not exactly "a Little "on the port beam.
Really.jpg
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,229
1,559
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
With all due respect to everyone who wants the believe differently, I do not believe that the vessel seen by Stone and Stewart at 4am was the same vessel seen by Lord and Stewart around 5am. I also don't have any reason to believe that Stewart had nothing better to do than continuously watch this stopped steamer all the time while he was on deck, or after he and Lord came up sometime after Stewart called upon him around 4:30. I'm fully aware that Stewart said that he believed it was the same vessel he saw later around 5am, but that does not make it so. At 4am only the lights of vessels were visible. It was still too dark to make out structures. Here are some relevant times taken from the USNO site for: 41°43'N 49°57'W (Titanic wreck site location) for 15 April 1912 (Californian time was 3h 10m behind GMT):

begin Astronomical Twilight 07:00 GMT = 3:50 Californian time
begin Nautical Twilight 07:37 GMT = 04:27 Californian time
Moon rise 07:55 GMT = 04:45 Californian time
begin Civil Twilight 08:11 GMT = 05:01 Californian time
Sun rise 08:40 GMT = 05:30 Californian time

It was 4:50am (using Californian time) when it was noted in Durrant's PV that MT had been stopped in ice and the radio was all quite. A little to the south of her was this small 2-masted steamer with a black funnel which was also stopped at that time. Rostron said that he noticed two vessels to his northward around 7 to 8 miles sometime around 5am, one with 4 masts and a single funnel, the other with 2 masts and a single funnel. I believe the two were Mount Temple and the small tramp with that black funnel that Moore said he had in sight. Around the same time we have Lord who said there was this steamer to the SW about 8 miles which turned out to have a yellow funnel. As I've pointed out before, if Lord's SW direction was even remotely correct, that steamer would have been on the western side of the pack ice, not on the eastern where Carpathia was.

Now some here believe that the yellow funnel steamer seen by Californian at that time was Carpathia about 8 miles away, even claiming that Rostron's observation supports this distance, implying that his 4-masted steamer with a single funnel was Californian. Yet, there needs to be accountability for all vessels in that area. Was there another steamer anywhere close to Californian at that time? Think about it. This small steamer was southward of Mount Temple steaming northward when Californian passed Mount Temple later that morning, after Mount Temple came back from a short abortive excursion to the south after following this small tramp southward looking for a path across the ice. Also, you must account for the time element on how long it would take Californian to come down the western side of the ice to come abreast of Carpathia and then cut across the ice to get to her. From the time she cleared the ice around 6:30, until she was seen 5 to 6 miles away cutting across the ice toward Rostron around 8am, is about one and half hours. There is also independent evidence that she reached Carpathia around 8:30, not at 7:45 according to Groves' faulty estimate. 5 to 6 miles in 30 minutes is an average of 10 to 12 knots crossing 3 to 4 miles if ice and then about 2 miles of relatively open water to where Carpathia was at that time.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,290
650
188
South Wales UK
With all due respect to everyone who wants the believe differently, I do not believe that the vessel seen by Stone and Stewart at 4am was the same vessel seen by Lord and Stewart around 5am. I also don't have any reason to believe that Stewart had nothing better to do than continuously watch this stopped steamer all the time while he was on deck, or after he and Lord came up sometime after Stewart called upon him around 4:30. I'm fully aware that Stewart said that he believed it was the same vessel he saw later around 5am, but that does not make it so. At 4am only the lights of vessels were visible. It was still too dark to make out structures. Here are some relevant times taken from the USNO site for: 41°43'N 49°57'W (Titanic wreck site location) for 15 April 1912 (Californian time was 3h 10m behind GMT):

begin Astronomical Twilight 07:00 GMT = 3:50 Californian time
begin Nautical Twilight 07:37 GMT = 04:27 Californian time
Moon rise 07:55 GMT = 04:45 Californian time
begin Civil Twilight 08:11 GMT = 05:01 Californian time
Sun rise 08:40 GMT = 05:30 Californian time

It was 4:50am (using Californian time) when it was noted in Durrant's PV that MT had been stopped in ice and the radio was all quite. A little to the south of her was this small 2-masted steamer with a black funnel which was also stopped at that time. Rostron said that he noticed two vessels to his northward around 7 to 8 miles sometime around 5am, one with 4 masts and a single funnel, the other with 2 masts and a single funnel. I believe the two were Mount Temple and the small tramp with that black funnel that Moore said he had in sight. Around the same time we have Lord who said there was this steamer to the SW about 8 miles which turned out to have a yellow funnel. As I've pointed out before, if Lord's SW direction was even remotely correct, that steamer would have been on the western side of the pack ice, not on the eastern where Carpathia was.

Now some here believe that the yellow funnel steamer seen by Californian at that time was Carpathia about 8 miles away, even claiming that Rostron's observation supports this distance, implying that his 4-masted steamer with a single funnel was Californian. Yet, there needs to be accountability for all vessels in that area. Was there another steamer anywhere close to Californian at that time? Think about it. This small steamer was southward of Mount Temple steaming northward when Californian passed Mount Temple later that morning, after Mount Temple came back from a short abortive excursion to the south after following this small tramp southward looking for a path across the ice. Also, you must account for the time element on how long it would take Californian to come down the western side of the ice to come abreast of Carpathia and then cut across the ice to get to her. From the time she cleared the ice around 6:30, until she was seen 5 to 6 miles away cutting across the ice toward Rostron around 8am, is about one and half hours. There is also independent evidence that she reached Carpathia around 8:30, not at 7:45 according to Groves' faulty estimate. 5 to 6 miles in 30 minutes is an average of 10 to 12 knots crossing 3 to 4 miles if ice and then about 2 miles of relatively open water to where Carpathia was at that time.

Hi Sam,

I am finding all this very difficult to deal with on a purely personal level.

You ought to deal with the premise that Paul Lee propounds in his book as to The Mount Temple not being the yellow funnelled steamer, and which Paul explained on this very thread many years ago.

It seems to me a very compelling case that Stewart and Captain Lord lied about the colour of the funnel colouring. My own view was that no colour would be clearly distinguishable, but to 'muddy the waters' they by the time of the British Inquiry decided a strategy that was not the absolute truth, and thereby implicate by inference The Mount Temple and avoid a potential positive sighting of the Carpathia early that morning.

That is my considered view. It is my reading of the evidence. And, I assure you I have reflected over this many many times.

Cheers,
Julian
 

Similar threads

Similar threads