I have read the piece by Sam and Mark, and I am frankly embarrassed for them.
As a professional writer, I'm used to harsh criticism that is usually more substantial. However, I am also deeply hurt by the childish secrecy that surrounded this barbed attack on me personally and my research. When I wrote my paper, I corresponded with Sam throughout. Not being given the same courtesy in return says something about the honor of the two authors that I don't really want to discuss.
I stand 100% behind everything that I have said in my paper. What I presented is correct dead reckoning based upon...and only upon...evidence from Titanic. I have used only the generally accepted practices of navigators for dead reckoning and current vector problems. If the two authors don't like the truth, then they are free to continue on their course.
All I ask is that people read my paper and understand that I do not ever claim to know where Titanic was, just where the dead reckoning says it should have been. Based upon this and the data from the ship's own radio transmissions, I have shown that Titanic did make a one point (11 degree) course alteration that night.
Captain Smith did not steam blindly to oblivion. Even
Boxhall admitted the captain was on the bridge plotting. Now we can see the efforts of Smith's work.
In writing my paper I had considered loops and whorls in currents as a cause of Titanic's flotsam gaining westing. At one point I even considered circular eddies such as form on the edges of the Gulf Stream. Denise can verify this.
Sometimes it helps to have real-world experience. I removed current loops and eddies for good reason. The type of debris on the surface was light -- cork, barber poles, broken wood. It would have been moved more by wind than by the currents of the area. This is obvious on any river when a wind comes up cross-current. Light debris moves in the thin layer of water pushed by the wind; while logs and other heavier debris cross the lighter stuff at an angle as it continues to move with the current.
The physical evidence on the bottom of shows a current that night with an almost a due south set. So, it seemed to me that a whorl in the current was neither the best or most logical explanation of the debris movement. But, wind as reported by people who were on the scene did explain it.
(Private to the authors: the movement of the debris cannot be taken backwards through the "fix" of the boiler field in dead reckoning. Nothing that happens after a fix affects what went before. Remember, the arrow of time flies only one way.)
My suggestion of a "wave" along the Polar Front is not wild-eyed speculation as some jealous authors would have you believe. The weather pattern as recorded by people on the scene matches the Bjerknes "theory of storms" which is the basis of all modern meteorology. The direction of the wind before and after the calm is particularly telling, as is the drop in temperature.
The bottom line of the rebuttal paper is personal anger. The authors are angry that I of all people have found several ways, including proper navigation, to show that the time of the accident was not 11 hours and 40 minutes after noon. Rather, it was 12 hours and 4 minutes.
Bringing the proper time duration into the picture does more than just correct an impossible set to the current that night. It also puts into question all the conclusions based on the wrong (too short) dead reckoning of the accident. And, for at least one of the writers that means reworking years of research.
I do not plan to back down from reality just because it is inconvenient to what someone else has published in the past. Repetition of mistakes, especially by shouting, does not correct them.
Regretfully, the rebuttal paper contains material that I believe was designed and intended to harm my reputation and to interfere with my ability to earn a living; and, as such, is actionable. For this reason, I am requesting that Denise remove it from her web site. This is not something I take lightly, but the paper has gone beyond legitimate heated intellectual discourse, which I would welcome if they choose to do so with less malice. I have no choice when it comes to someone doing me deliberate harm.
-- David G. Brown
