The Mystery Ship

[Tomás Eduardo Podestá]

When Titanic Exhibition came to Buenos Aires -Argentina-, there was a big map showing the position of all the ships in the disaster's area.
There was one named Paris (¿or Parisian?) that, accoding to this map, could have been close enough Titanic, but besid this possible location of Parisian (or Paris) there was an interrogation mark. ¿Do anybody have more information about this ship?

 

[Dave Gittins]

The ship was Parisian. She was ahead of Titanic and within 50 or 60 miles (I think). Her only radio operator went off duty before the collision and so the captain didn't know about it until the next day.

Even if Parisian had heard Titanic's call for help, she was too far away to assist in time.

 

[Dave Gittins]

Make that nearer 80 miles.

 

[Jim Currie]

I write this here because I can't find a better vehicle.

Frankly I've never heard such 'cod's wallop' as the statement made by Donkeyman Gill.
Having said that, 'there's no smoke without fire'.

Let's consider what Donkeyman Gill said concerning the ship that he saw at around 0002hrs on the morning of 15th. April. He saw the complete works : lights down to the waterline etc. 'Big German'(passenger liner?). passing.
Gill was standing on the starboard side of the maindeck - his height of eye could not have been much more than 15 feet. This means that if he saw a ship's side exhibiting all the signs of a passenger ship i.e. lines of lit portholes etc. then that particular ship could not have been more than 5 miles away.

At just over 13 miles, Titanic's sides would be invisible to him. So what did he see? Is this mystery ship 1 or 2?

Any takers?

Jim.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I think Gill saw money. There are as many holes in his story as there are in a slice of Swiss cheese. We know from Evans that what took place during the middle watch was being talked about on the Californian the next day and while they were headed back to Boston.

Anyone else care to comment?

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Anyone else care to comment?<<

Not much more to add to any of that is there? Gill was the witness even Leslie Reade didn't like, and there were few anti-Lord sources which he didn't like. About his only real value was that he could verify that something happened and that the crew knew about it.

Beyond that, I don't trust him any further then I could throw Mount Everest.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hi Guys!

Agree fully with your 'take' on this weasel.
The disgraceful part is that learned men on both sides of the Atlantic listened to what he had to say and gave him a prominence in the affair that he did not warrant. They did not grill him as they did the others-why? That was one crafty sleaze-ball! After deserting even had the gaul to work his passage back home so he could make a few bucks more out of the UK press.
Unfortunately the summing-up in the final BOT report seems to have been influenced by what he reported regarding the proximity of his vessel.

As for the value of his evidence - a thing only has real value if it is scarce!

Cheers,

Jim.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>The disgraceful part is that learned men on both sides of the Atlantic listened to what he had to say and gave him a prominence in the affair that he did not warrant.<<

Well, he did give the powers-that-be somebody to blame whether that person deserved it or not.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced that even the Mersey Court had much love for this bloke. Especially when he said something along the lines of "I can't speak to that" on matters that he was clearly speaking to.

 

[George L. Lorton]

I don't think Capt. Lord was the kind of fella who'd go to the bar with you and knock back a few beers. I bit reserved. Which might of had an effect on how he got on with his crew. But I get the impression from reading bits and pieces that he was a hard worker and very fair. A lot like Capt. Smith sans the charisma.

>>Anyone else care to comment?<<

Donkeyman Gill wanted the money for his (concocted) testimony. I really don't have much else to say about him.

 

[Jim Currie]

I have been trying to cobble-up a picture of the positions of the players on that night.
The enclosed CAD drawing is the result. It's nearly to scale but more in proportion.

<table border=1>[tr][td]

Suggested locations of vessels with alternatives for 'Californian'.
Drawing1.dwg (32.3 k)[/td][/tr][/table]​

 

[Samuel Halpern]

With what do you open a .dwg file with? Can it be uploaded as a .gif, .jpg, or .bmp file?

 

[Martin Pirrie]

Files with the suffix .dwg are used by Autocad and Autodesk. You may be able to convert them to a .pdf file but I have found that some of the detail is lost in the process.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hi guys!

Told you I was a computer ancient.

I will plot and copy then re-transmit as a word document.

Bi Bi

 

[Erik Wood]

Just a quick comment about Captain Lord and his interaction with his crew. In that age (1912) and in this one, a captains place is not a bar drinking with the crew. Even when in port.

Officers yes, the rest of the crew...not so much.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello there!

Swimming in dangerous waters here!

I have made a few assumptions, used enquiry evidence and earlier suggestion and incorporated them into the following:

First, I assumed the masthead light of Titanic was seen by Californian at 2300 hrs at the extreme range of 22miles. I also assumed it was on a bearing of ESE (112.5T). This gave me a DR for Californian at 2300 Titanic time.
My next ingredient was a 0.7 knot current setting S 10 W. I used a speed of 22.3 knots for Titanic.

On a nautical chart, I plotted Titanic at 2300 with Californian bearing 292.5T (WNW) at 22 miles.
I then ran Titanic on a course of 266T for 40 minutes and plotted her DR at 2300. During this time, Californian would drift southward for the same time at 0.7knots. I plotted her new position at 2340.
The resulting situation at 2340 between the two vessels was: Californian bearing 323 T at 12 miles from Titanic - not 315 T (NW)as has been suggested. For Californian to bear NW from Titanic at 2340, she would have to have drifted 2.1 miles to the southward in 40 minutes - a current of 3 knots.
Both stopped vessels would continue to drift under the influence of the current. Titanic stopped drifting and sank at 0220- Californian continued drifting until 0600 hrs on the 15th. when she started south on her rescue attempt.

At that time, using Lord's DR at 0600, she would have 32 miles to steam to the survivor area.

Using the alternative position for 0600 she would have 23 miles to steam to the rescue area.
Additionally at that position, she would have been 6 miles from the CQD, 12 miles from the survivors, 8 miles from Moor's mystery ship and 10 miles from Mount temple. It seems unlikely she was there as all the participating vessels would have been in plain sight for some time before 0600.

I also plotted the suggested positions of not one but two mystery vessels. I used Lord's sighting about 12 miles to the eastward and Groves's 3.5 points abaft the starboard beam - bot observations when the ship'd head was NE T.
Groves said his vessel was heading at about 45 degrees to his ships head showing a red light - it was also getting closer. This suggests a ship on a northerly heading. On the other hand; Lord's sighting is indeed a mystery - particularly when applied to the plot. If he saw it 'just as he was going below' at around 2240 hrs and it was bearing 'easterly' and easterly is interpreted as about ESE and it was seen at the extreme range then we have a problem.
Plotting the interpretation of 'easterly' as ENE at around 2240 Titanic time and using extreme range of 22 miles places Californian about 11 miles x 010T from Titanic when she hit the berg.



I have made a drawing of the situation but don't seem to be able to up load it. First I was advised it had been uploaded OK then when I tried ti view it it said it was too big. Then I then went to the oversize facility and it gave me an upload facility I could not get to work...Help! (it is in jpg format)

Cheers,

Jim.

Cheers,

Jim.