Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,461
734
323
Funchal. Madeira
No, Mike I wasn't there at the inquiry. You are for once right about that.

However it is deeply, deeply irresponsible of you to continually waste peoples time with all these utterly absurd allegations of plots and cover ups based not upon the slightest scrap of evidence but purely on "what I think happened".

It doesn't matter a jot what you or I or anyone else *thinks happened*, that is completely irrelevant. It's what the evidence tells us what happened that counts. Is it really that hard to understand ? My history teacher in first year was able to explain this easily to me years ago, it's not that complicated.

Charles Pellegrino and the late Robin Gardiner both wrote books based in part on *what they think happened* and look at their reputation. Junk history.

So your latest theory (based on zero evidence at all) is that the survivors weren't healthy enough to give evidence ? Wrong. If the survivors were called to testify and were not in a fit physical condition to do so then their trade unions, the newspapers and sympathetic politicians would have raised a fuss. They didn't. The men were ready to testify and didn't complain.

Researchers have repeatedly went clean through the archives in England, Northern Ireland, the USA and Canada over the decades. They never found any evidence for all this tripe about bribes, threats and intimidation you keep insisting must have taken place.



She struck me as being a god awful hack author with high opinion of herself and was desperate for fame.

I absolutely cannot stand people like that at all.
Hello Seamus.

Mark Twain was way ahead of the pack when he advised "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story". I am afraid that many Titanic authors and their acolytes subscribe to this philosophy.
My pet hate as a Professional is the moment I come across "extended thought "when reading a well structured offering.
Too often well respected authors fall into this trap. They reach the limit of their knowledge and sources thereof and fill-in the reader's mind-picture by inserting a missing link, constructed from their personal ideas on logic.
In fact, I indulge in a version of this myself, from which, I have often been scorned on these pages. However, my "fill-ins" are drawn from personal experience of doing more or less exactly the same thing over and over again. Either that, or from having been in the company of those who have related doing such a thing.
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
824
119
88
You might think it crazy, but there are very good reasons why eyewitnesses are questioned as soon as possible following a tragic effect. It was bad enough that in some cases, it was weeks later rather than just days.
Sam you make a valid point are questioned as soon as possible following a tragic effect. But by whom?
The US inquiry started 10.30 19th April. The time Senator William Smith get the authorisation from the US President Taft on the 17th April there is no time to waste. Where other Senators are asked to assist and place where to hold the inquiry. The rescue ship Carpathia with the ones required for questioning arrive late afternoon 18th, that's a day and half preparation for the inquiry and not weeks! The ones for questing will start on the day of the inquiry. There is no time to start an investigation beforehand as we see for an inquiry today.
Quite frankly if the UK inquiry started the 2nd May give you only 17 days which I suppose is better than nothing. But total unacceptable for today inquiries as we can see run into years before the final out come. That to is no guarantee is the finish where a peels could well follow on. As in the UK inquiry left a lot of unanswered questions lack of witness who never ask to give evidence.
I don't see any peels to follow on to!
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
824
119
88
We seem to be having a run of Titanic documentaries on the TV lately. As tonight 8.00 Yesterday program another fascinating subject's.
Mr H Lowe 5th officer with his grandson showing the binoculars. What I was not to clear about, where they the ones as used on Titanic? If so wow.
Then the revolver he had in his cabin and took with him. Question I thought the hand guns where kept under lock and key and only handed out when Smith gave the order to so?
The alligator handbag belong to Marion Meanwell found on the sea bed was in remarkable condition after all those years.
Finding the Titanic whistles and how big they were as seen on the funnel look on the small size. Then to get them working again, wow that was quite some thing else!
I wander what else they have lined up for next week program? Can't wait.
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
824
119
88
That's your lot I'm afraid. There were four episodes
O what a great shame. There must be more great story out there as like yours! You will lets us known when your next lecture takes place preference the south east of England for me! I can think of one place in Southampton April time for 2021.
I think its great to hear from the other side of the story from the lower rank crew members. As see been overwhelmed by their seniors!
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,031
266
353
Mike, Lowe had his own pistol, a Browning automatic. The ship's guns were Webleys. We only know the fate of the one Lightoller had. It's not clear if all the officers had guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
824
119
88
Thanks for the reply.
Was there any reason why an officer or any crew member should have one? Or was the job that dangerous it necessary to carry one? Come to think about it where passengers allowed guns on board to?
 

Bob_Read

Member
May 9, 2019
521
240
88
USA
I doubt if there were any restrictions about carrying handguns. As to whether any officer or crew member should have one, there were Webley revolvers kept in storage so White Star must have envisioned some situation where one might be needed. It turned out that a pistol or pistols were fired during the disaster to restore order.
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
459
192
88
Glasgow, Scotland
Thanks for the reply.
Was there any reason why an officer or any crew member should have one? Or was the job that dangerous it necessary to carry one? Come to think about it where passengers allowed guns on board to?
Attitudes towards personal firearms were quite liberal in those days. It's nothing controversial.

There were at least three passengers who had firearms with them. Navratil Snr's body was recovered with a loaded revolver on his person.

In fact it would be interesting to know from Jim Currie if any passenger vessels he sailed on had a box of firearms handy ?
 
Last edited:
Nov 14, 2005
1,270
434
218
Well the simple answer is that they had a schedule to keep. White Star had a lot riding on keeping the schedule of Titanics maiden voyage. The coal bunker fire was dealt with in the way they usually did. Use that coal by shoveling it in the boilers. At the time White Star was scrambling to get whatever coal they could because of the coal stike going on. Coal bunker fires were not all that uncommon. If it was something that the engineers aboard Titanic thought that it needed to be handled in a different way I'm sure they would have called that out. I've read the after the fact statements of many but I don;t recall reading anyone making an issue of it before the fact that caused different actions to be taken other than the way they normally handled those things. Oh...and Welcome to the board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
1,270
434
218
Thanks for the reply.
Was there any reason why an officer or any crew member should have one? Or was the job that dangerous it necessary to carry one? Come to think about it where passengers allowed guns on board to?
I don't think the job was that dangerous. Any more than any other job dealing with the public. But it would only be prudent for the Master at Arms to have them avaiable if a situation arose that warranted it. People being people you never what could come up. Plus although I've never read anything official about the policy I would think after the so called mutiny aboard the Oceanic the company probably wanted the officers of their ships to be able to defend themselfs if needed. I say so called mutiny because it sounded more like a sit down strike to me. Also I've never come across rules from WSL that prohibited firearms of passengers. I'm sure all the professional gamblers that rode those ships would have felt naked without their derringers.
 
Nov 14, 2005
1,270
434
218
There are several dark marks alongside the hull far away from that bunker.

View attachment 2291
I had to resurrect this post because last night they replayed the documentary "Titanic's Fatal Fire" I guess for the anniversary. They could have picked a better one. But what you point out in the pic above is what I was saying when they were showing the pictures to make their case. I kept saying "well what about the other smudges in the pictures. They never pointed those out.
 
Apr 16, 2020
3
3
3
Newport south wales
Well the simple answer is that they had a schedule to keep. White Star had a lot riding on keeping the schedule of Titanics maiden voyage. The coal bunker fire was dealt with in the way they usually did. Use that coal by shoveling it in the boilers. At the time White Star was scrambling to get whatever coal they could because of the coal stike going on. Coal bunker fires were not all that uncommon. If it was something that the engineers aboard Titanic thought that it needed to be handled in a different way I'm sure they would have called that out. I've read the after the fact statements of many but I don;t recall reading anyone making an issue of it before the fact that caused different actions to be taken other than the way they normally handled those things. Oh...and Welcome to the board.
I will have to dig alittle deeper as Im sure I heard that they knew about the fire, but i think they didnt realise it would be that bad and would be able to contain it, ai feel either way this did cause a weakness to the ship...yes happy to be aboard
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
1,270
434
218
I will have to dig alittle deeper as Im sure I heard that they knew about the fire, but i think they didnt realise it would be that bad and would be able to contain it, ai feel either way this did cause a weakness to the ship...yes happy to be aboard
Yes...I would have to go back and read the testimony but one of the firemen did testify that it was pretty bad and took them about 3 days of around clock shoveling to clear it out. But if I remember right he also said it was his first bunker fire so maybe it looked worse to him than to others. Whether or not it actually caused the bulkhead to fail is one of those mysteries that wont be solved until they can a little ROV inside the space to go have a look see. That would be if the conditions inside would even let them reach it.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
477
453
Easley South Carolina
First, the fire was not "That bad." It was essentially a smouldering bed and nothing more. Think of a blacksmith's forge only a bit on the oxygen starved side. You actually have to run a bellows to force air through in order to get some significant heat out of it.

Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that this smouldering bed caused any sort of weakness in the bulkhead much less the shell plating of the ship.

None. It's just not there.

Reality check: When you use an iceberg as a can opener, it doesn't end well. The complaint that the bulkhead may have been weakened misses the fact that it was the hull itself which was breeched.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Oct 14, 2009
64
0
96
Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that this smouldering bed caused any sort of weakness in the bulkhead much less the shell plating of the ship.
Hello, Michael! I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The collision had sprung the first five compartments in any case--the ship was done for regardless of the effects of the bunker fire. Didn't Frederick Barrett testify that the bunker wall and not the bulkhead had been holding back the water in that area?
 

Similar threads