The position of Stone's first "Flash" relative to the nearby vessel.


Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,102
621
143
England
Jim,

Captain Smith was way beyond his 4th year of apprenticeship but even I who has a humble RYA qualification am pretty certain that with a chart, a known good fix and a known running time at a constant speed and a constant course would have been able to pinpoint my position with an accuracy of better than 20 miles.

People screw up. You often claim these fellows would have done this or that and you know for certain.

I work in the railway industry and I know for certain that we train our teams in safety and how to work on live railways. I know this because I train some of these courses. I know what these blokes are told. Yet six months ago 2 track workers both with over 40 years experience each in railway engineering were smacked to bits by an on coming high speed train. I'll say it again, people are fallible and screw up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,196
663
213
Funchal. Madeira
There is sworn evidence that Titanic sank at 41° 46'N, 50° 14'W by multiple people. (13 miles west of the wreck site.)
There is sworn evidence that Titanic was facing northward when stopped.
There is sworn evidence that green was actually seen before red from Titanic.
There is sworn evidence that the vessel seen from Titanic was to her "northward."
There is sworn evidence that that rockets kept on the same bearing as this steamer as she allegedly was steaming away.
There is sworn evidence that that the steamer started to steam way after the first rocket was seen from more than one person.
There is sworn evidence that those rockets from Carpathia were seen to SSW despite Carpathia coming up from the SE.

I could go on, but why bother?
Utterly irrelevant. One of your usual body-swerve tactics, Sam. The only verifiable item in your entire list is the actual position of Titanic and that was because Ballard found the wreck. You observed:

"There is sworn evidence that those rockets from Carpathia were seen to SSW despite Carpathia coming up from the SE."

There is also evidence written from the same source but much fresher. In fact, written 3 days after the event about the same sighting. I quote

"The Chief Officer, Mr. Stewart, came on the bridge at 4 a.m., and I gave him a full report of what I had seen and my reports and replies from you, and pointed out where I thought I had observed these faint lights at 3:20. He picked up the binoculars and said after a few moments: ‘There she is then, she's all right, she is a four-master.’ I said, ‘Then that isn't the steamer I saw first,’ 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.,"

In fact South by Compass was probably close to 150 True because the Deviation on a heading of West was about 5.5 West. From Chief Officer Stewart: "8713. Do you know what the deviation of your compass is? A: - About 5 degrees, I believe - 5 1/2 degrees I believe it was.

Guess what? A position 30 miles away from Californian in the direction of 150 True places the source of the rocket 10 miles SE of the wreck site. Roughly the position of Carpathia when her rockets were seen from Californian

But I guess you like the later version since it seems to show Stone in a bad light and keeps up the nonsense of Californian being NW of the sinking Titanic

I wonder why I bother.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,196
663
213
Funchal. Madeira
Could you please provide the source?
Thanks.
With Pleasure:

From the work of Dr Paul Lee
"
April 14""SS Mesaba""41.50 N 49.15 W""11.00am passed a quantity of bergs, some very large; also a field of pack ice about 5 miles long
On April 14th, the Mesaba sent a message to Captain Harris of the Parisian: "Noon Lat 42.02N Long 49.25W .. "
The 11 am position was where they thought she was...a DR/ The Noon position would be calculated and was a fix. In fact, the ship's true position was some 12 miles nor and much to the eastward of where they expected her to be. This with a northerly wind blowing.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,082
486
93
South Wales UK
Oh gosh! This is all getting a bit silly and heated... except for a few of us!


There is sworn evidence that those rockets from Carpathia were seen to SSW despite Carpathia coming up from the SE.

Which could be correct, and provides just another evidence that the Californian was drifting in en eddy, and by the time they observed Carpathia’s rockets she was located northeast of the lifeboats, and not northwest as it was at the beginning of the night. It also confirms Mr. Stone’s testimony that the Titanic was changing bearings.
AlexP/Mila, you appear to not understand a bit of irony and a cryptic reply from Sam...

If you want it spelled out to you in black and white, and goodness knows many have done this before, including my first reply to you on here some time ago on another thread...

It is a FACT that the Carpathia came up from the SE.

Stone said he saw the Carpathia rockets on a bearing of SSW from 3.20am onwards. (He didn't, in his 18th April statement, say they were rockets or that they came from the Carpathia, but all the other evidence - which is compelling - suggests that they were the rockets fired from the Carpathia).

The point is that Stone got the direction/bearing of the Carpathia rockets WRONG!

Therefore, there must be a big question mark over how accurate Stone's other claimed bearings were of the other vessel seen earlier that he told Gibson to report to Captain Lord and wake him and "We had seen altogether eight white rockets and the steamer had gone out of sight in the SW" (18th April statement Stone). Or Gibson's corroborative account of Stone telling him to "Call the Captain and tell him that the ship has disappeared in the S.W., and that we are heading W.S.W and that altogether she has fired eight rockets.... I told him they were all white" (18th April statement Gibson).

So, if Stone got the bearings of the rockets fired from the Carpathia wrong ie not correct being SE, but instead SSW, then it follows that the obvious inference is that he didn't see this other steamer "gone out of sight in the SW"!

It is all in Sam's new book.

It is quite clear to me that Stone got his bearings wrong a bit later on during his watch, and did not properly account for The Californian swinging around. This as a clear logical explanation of the evidence, and I take no credit for this; it is all Sam's work.

(Unfortunately for Stone, he did not know at the time of the wireless messages recorded by the Mount Temple or the SS Caronia).

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,082
486
93
South Wales UK
We don't have the Company Board records for the Leyland Line of the period, unlike the Harrison Line under which Stone subsequently was employed till his mental breakdown.

Any Company Board resolution or decision would have needed a vote, by a majority and if needed, by the casting vote of the Chairman.

One must consider that the J P Morgan conglomerate owned a controlling shareholding in the Leyland Line, and as such would be able to appoint a majority of the Board members to control the Board of Directors - not just to control happenings at an AGM by exercising a more than 50% shareholding.

My personal view, having a bit of knowledge of Company Law and as it was around 1912, is that the Sir Miles Walker Mattinson KC...


(who was not "Matheson" as quoted by Captain Lord)

... could NOT have swung a Leyland Line Board decision himself individually by his single vote.

The Board could only have resolved to ask for Captain Lord to resign by a majority vote, and as a result what Captain Lord says he was told by Roper, cannot be correct. I think the 1961 taped recorded interview transcripts go into this in more detail.

I think we must consider, according to Company law, that Roper told Captain Lord a 'sop'.

It may be that Sir Miles Walker Mattinson KC objected strongly to Captain Lord continuing his employment with Leyland Line, and he might have had influence over other Board members to get a majority decision. But a 'one dissenting voice' does not of itself on a Board signify anything as per Roper.

The clear implication from a knowledge of Company law is that a majority of the Board voted to ask Captain Lord to resign.

He subsequently did this so far as I can ascertain on 13th August 1912, having by letter dated 10th August 1912 asked the Board of Trade to reconsider his case, and the 2 dates are important as indicating that Captain Lord agreed to resign and wrote his letter to the Board of Trade at the same time.

I have stated previously on another thread that, as per practice of the day and still occurs, if Captain Lord had not agreed to resign, he would not have been provided with a reference from the Leyland Line.

I have spent a bit of time setting out the facts and the law, as others seem to be ignorant of these details, as was apparently Captain Lord in August 1912.

If IMM had a controlling interest in the Leyland Line - which is beyond dispute - and on the Board - then really Sir Miles Walker Mattinson KC was just a bit player in all this, and other factors were at work.

Cheers,

Julian

I think I ought to add a bit to my post yesterday evening.

Normally a Board of Directors of a Company would not make any decision on a vote of a Company employee.

If Roper's report to Captain Lord had any substance and was true, then Sir Miles Walker Mattinson raised his threat of resignation if Captain Lord did not resign.

Applying modern UK Company Law, and if a conflict of interests was thought to be apparent between IMM nominees on the Board of Leyland Line, they would be considered in modern parlance 'conflicted'. It is a mute point whether the 'conflict of interests' was as clear to us now as it was in 1912.

I think we can take it from the 'Marconi Shares Scandal' that moral integrity over these sort of matters was a bit shady to say the least in 1912.

There is quite a bit more to all this which is probably very boring.

I suppose it is just possible that Roper's report to Captain Lord was true, and the matter did not get to the level of a Board meeting resolution. There is still an argument as to the influence of Sir Miles Walker Mattinson and as per the IMM who had a controlling interest in Leyland Line. I have done exhaustive searches online in the National Archive records but cannot come up with any leads. I need to do some further research on all of this.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,102
621
143
England
If it was modern parlance then today we would have said Lord left the Leyland Line by "mutual consent"

;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,196
663
213
Funchal. Madeira
Oh gosh! This is all getting a bit silly and heated... except for a few of us!







AlexP/Mila, you appear to not understand a bit of irony and a cryptic reply from Sam...

If you want it spelled out to you in black and white, and goodness knows many have done this before, including my first reply to you on here some time ago on another thread...

It is a FACT that the Carpathia came up from the SE.

Stone said he saw the Carpathia rockets on a bearing of SSW from 3.20am onwards. (He didn't, in his 18th April statement, say they were rockets or that they came from the Carpathia, but all the other evidence - which is compelling - suggests that they were the rockets fired from the Carpathia).

The point is that Stone got the direction/bearing of the Carpathia rockets WRONG!

Therefore, there must be a big question mark over how accurate Stone's other claimed bearings were of the other vessel seen earlier that he told Gibson to report to Captain Lord and wake him and "We had seen altogether eight white rockets and the steamer had gone out of sight in the SW" (18th April statement Stone). Or Gibson's corroborative account of Stone telling him to "Call the Captain and tell him that the ship has disappeared in the S.W., and that we are heading W.S.W and that altogether she has fired eight rockets.... I told him they were all white" (18th April statement Gibson).

So, if Stone got the bearings of the rockets fired from the Carpathia wrong ie not correct being SE, but instead SSW, then it follows that the obvious inference is that he didn't see this other steamer "gone out of sight in the SW"!

It is all in Sam's new book.

It is quite clear to me that Stone got his bearings wrong a bit later on during his watch, and did not properly account for The Californian swinging around. This as a clear logical explanation of the evidence, and I take no credit for this; it is all Sam's work.

(Unfortunately for Stone, he did not know at the time of the wireless messages recorded by the Mount Temple or the SS Caronia).

Cheers,

Julian
I am reminded of "

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again".


A Navigator qualified to the level of Mate (FG) would never " not properly account for The Californian swinging around." That is utter nonsense. However, a Navigator recalling one of very many headings and bearings might easily get a true direction confused with an uncorrected Compass direction.
For example, Captain Lord told the UK Inquiry: " I turned round and headed E.N.E. by the compass. I twisted her head to E.N.E.
If Californian was where Captain Lord said she was when she stopped. then when the nearby vessel was abeam in line with the sinking Titanic, it was bearing SSE True.
If, as indicated by the evidence of Apprentice Gibson, Californian's bow was swinging at a rate of 1 degree a minute and the nearby vessel was abeam at 12-15 am, then 1 hour 55 minutes earlier, when she stared swinging, her bow would have been pointing close to North by West True or North by East Magnetic.
If the Deviation was West on that heading then it is quite possible that Californian was heading between N x E and NNE Compass when she stopped so in this instance Lord's initial heading evidence would fit with the swing evidence of Gibson and the continuous swing evidence of both Groves and Stone. However, Lord also contradicted his initial heading evidence but this fitted with the heading evidence relative to a later time.
 

Bob_Read

Member
May 9, 2019
426
176
43
USA
Has anyone ever speculated that the Californian was a ”leper colony” where Leyland Line assigned all their foul-ups?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,196
663
213
Funchal. Madeira
"The strongest arguments prove nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation.
Roger Bacon."
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,082
486
93
South Wales UK
a Navigator recalling one of very many headings and bearings might easily get a true direction confused with an uncorrected Compass direction.
If, as indicated by the evidence of Apprentice Gibson, Californian's bow was swinging at a rate of 1 degree a minute and the nearby vessel was abeam at 12-15 am, then 1 hour 55 minutes earlier, when she stared swinging, her bow would have been pointing close to North by West True or North by East Magnetic.
Hi Jim,

You are already considering that Stone got confused later on, which is a welcome admission!

When the watch changed at around just after 12 midnight, Captain Lord had pointed out to Stone the other ship before Stone went up the short rung of a ladder onto the flying bridge. Groves pointed out to Stone the bearing of this other ship and which way The Californian was then pointing. Stone confirms Groves. Gibson confirms them both.

So at 12.15AM on the 15th, all 3 if not all 4 are in agreement as to which way The Californian was then pointing/heading, and what bearing this other vessel was. That is overwhelming conclusive corroboration for the time of the change of watch to The Middle Watch.

Later events are all explained in Sam's new book, as is the above.

Cheers,

Julian
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,082
486
93
South Wales UK
Has anyone ever speculated that the Californian was a ”leper colony” where Leyland Line assigned all their foul-ups?
Hi Bob,

Your reply deserves a comment.

Rather than speculate, let us consider the facts as we know them and can be proved...

1. Captain Lord was asked to resign by Leyland Line which he did on 13th August 1912.

2. At the British Inquiry Captain Lord was poorly represented by his Counsel (Barrister) Robertson Dunlop, and Dunlop was not present for much of the later crucial days (for Captain Lord) of the Inquiry. He was not even present when Captain Rostron gave his evidence, and the crucial evidence contained within Captain Rostron's 4th June 1912 Affidavit.

3. We know from Paul Lee's research and from others that Stone and Gibson both went on to have spectacularly unfortunate careers in the British Merchant Navy.

4. We know that Captain Lord retired very early from the Merchant Navy to enjoy a long early retirement.

5. We know that Stewart and Groves appear to have been unaffected by the events of 14/15th April 1912. Groves, in particular seems to have had a very prosperous, apart from his interment during WW1, career and ended up living in retirement in Ipswich in a lovely chalet bungalow with lovely gardens. Stewart, tragically, became one of the first victims within UK territorial waters of a British Merchant vessel the SS Barnhill having come out of retirement to help with the war effort.

6. Of the other 'players' on The Californian, we know not a lot. Ships Carpenter McGregor disappears. Ernest Gill crops up here and there but exits off the stage, and everyone else keeps quiet and never comments again, so far as we know. I don't attach myself much to the significance of this - WW1 intervened and awful things happened that were far more important on the psyche of those in the UK than anything that had happened to Titanic, which was eclipsed.

It is very very difficult to form a definitive view of The Californian's Captain and Officers and Apprentice from the events of 14/15th April. Especially why, crucially, Captain Lord did not take more decisive action until around 6am on the 15th April when he responded to The Virginian's MSG of the Titanic sinking and her position from Captain Gambell, as opposed to what he had been told 45 minutes before by wireless, and earlier by Stewart of Stone's Report to Stewart.

I now consider, via Sam's new book, that much of the puzzle can be conclusively proved to fit together and provide almost all of the picture. A few pieces of the puzzle still need to be resolved, or perhaps the pieces will never be found to properly complete the picture. These relate principally to Captain Lord's own inaction that night and early morning.

There is a big gap in The Virginain's PV, but the other day I came across the following:-


William James Cotter, Marconi Operator on The Virginian, having it would appear retained the original Marconigrams, and subsequently sold by his family.

I would very much wish to know where these Marconigram chits ended up/are now, and what they disclose etc.

Cheers,

Julian
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
430
19
18
Usa
No it doesn't Alex. Not any more so than claiming that a unusual magnetic disturbance caused those wide change in compass bearings.
So it appears that you are unable to prove that it would have been impossible for the Carpathia's rockets to be seen SSW because to prove it you either should allege that Mr. Stone was not telling the truth when he testified that the Titanic steamed towards SW, and that Mr. Stone was not telling the truth either when he testified that Carpathia's rockets were seen SSW, or that Mr. Stone made an honest mistake. Both are hard to prove. It is very easy to demonstrate that Mr. Stone was telling the truth, and it is very hard to believe that he was so inexperienced that he could not have read the compass. Not to say that there are other testimonies that indirectly confirm Mr. Stone's account. Until you are able to provide some logical explanation on why the bearing between the Titanic and Californian did not change or explain how they could have changed, people who believe in mystery ships will believe the bearing changed and therefore it could not have been the Titanic that Mr. Stone was watching. They will tell you "a steamer in distress does not steam away" and they will be right. Under logical explanation I mean anything other that Mr. Stone was not telling the truth or that he was incompetent.
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2003
5,645
911
273
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
So it appears that you are unable to prove that it would have been impossible for the Carpathia's rockets to be seen SSW
Actually Alex, its quite easy to prove what you say is impossible to prove.
It is very easy to demonstrate that Mr. Stone was telling the truth
So go ahead with your convincing demonstration Alex. I'm sure we all would like to see that.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
430
19
18
Usa
Actually Alex, its quite easy to prove what you say is impossible to prove.
Then here is a simple “yes” or “no” question.
Could you prove it without alleging that Mr. Stone was not telling the truth and/or without alleging that Mr. Stone was incompetent?
So “yes” or “no”?
Besides if it is so easy to prove why don’t you prove it here and now? I mean I asked you first, but instead of responding a direct question you are asking me to go ahead with my “convincing demonstration”. I will at one point, but maybe if your explanation will convince me I will agree with you and that will be it.
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2003
5,645
911
273
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
but instead of responding a direct question you are asking me to go ahead with my “convincing demonstration”.
I did directly respond. You asked if I could prove that it was impossible for the Carpathia's rockets to be seen SSW from Californian. My answer to that direct question was: "Actually Alex, its quite easy to prove what you say is impossible to prove."
But you were not satisfied with that direct reply. What more I will say is that this proof you are asking for is covered in Ch 5 on pages 154-157 of StrangersOnTheHorizon.
I will at one point,
I don't think so Alex. If you were that sure of yourself you would not be on a fishing expedition for information that others may have that can easily blow your hypotheses right out of the water.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
430
19
18
Usa
What more I will say is that this proof you are asking for is covered in Ch 5 on pages 154-157 of StrangersOnTheHorizon.
Ah I see. Something that is easy to prove is explained on four pages of hard-to-read, unconfirmed speculations, and one could only find out anything at all about these speculations if one is to buy a book. Yet you are asking me to present you with findings from someone’s else not yet published book, the findings that I presented some time back, but for whatever reason they were deleted. In any case I could give you an idea of what I believe happened: the Californian and the Titanic were drifting in the different sets of currents. This fact presents a few possibilities to account for Mr. Stone’s testimony as well as for almost everyone that is hard to explain otherwise. On the other hand, you are refusing to give even a hint to your explanations. You did not even respond an easy “yes” or “no” question. However, I am guessing that you allege that Mr. Stone was confused when he was reading the compass because the Californian was swinging erratically and retrograde. Even if we are to assume that he was confused there are tons of other testimonies that are hard to explain, some of which indirectly confirm Mr. Stone’s testimony. According to the number of pages you spent to account for them, you provide different reasons to explain what people saw.

However, here is the thing, Sam, if we have many reliable testimonies that are hard to explain, they all probably could be explained on 2-3 pages with a single reason. In most cases, the easiest explanation is the correct one.
 
Last edited:

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,082
486
93
South Wales UK
Hi Mila/ AlexP,

Your above comments are very unfair on Sam. I have already provided a synopsis of all this as a reply to you in my post 84 on this thread, which you have singularly ignored and not replied to.

If you object so vehemently to buying a copy of Sam's new book, I will make the same offer I have made to Jim, and buy you a copy and send it to you.

If you would like to take me up on this then PM me. (And I don't have a stash of free copies to dish out, and I will have to buy them, same as I bought my own copy of Sam's new book).

Stone, for some inexplicable reason, was an idiot that night. My years of sitting in Court and dealing with witnesses in Court cases and preparing cases and drafting witness statements also shows - to me - Stone was also a rotten witness at the British Inquiry. Unreliable, evasive, failure to answer some questions other than with a silence, contradictory, and confused. Stewart did not a lot better either.

The Carpathia could not have approached The Californian on a course of SSW from The Californian, and so Stone's description was wrong/false. Sam presents all the facts in his new book objectively.

Cheers,
Julian