Titanic Timekeeping and the standards of the day


Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
From David G. Brown;
quote:

The subject of Titanic timekeeping has fascinated me for the past few years. It needs to be considered, but I think we need a new thread for the purpose.
Have at it, fellas. From where I sit, the way time was reckoned in that day is seriously misunderstood, starting with the notion that there were internationally agreed upon standard time zones.

There weren't.​
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hello chaps!

Have a look at my last article. You will find that they did not use a 5 hour difference between Greenwich and New York but in fact they used 4 hours and 55 minutes.. the longitude of Queens! Perhaps researchers might like to have another look at timings in the light of this?

JC
 

Martin Cooper

Member
Dec 13, 2007
146
6
123
Hello Captain Jim,

I have just read your article and must congratulate you on your findings. What a pity that there wasn't this sort of attention to details during the two enquiries, if there had been, they would have seen for themselves that the 'other ship' was not the Californian. Well done Jim, I hope Senan and Paul read it and pass their comments, it would be very interesting to read what they have to say.

Best regards, Martin.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Thank you Martin.

I'm sure Senan and others will not like the way the little sums appeared or the table of log readings. Philip Hind tried his best to sort that bit out. It looked fine in the copy but it was something to do with the programme I created the article in. Old age and computer savvy are hard things to reconcile but I'm getting there - slowly!

JC
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
Congratulations to Cap'n Jim on two counts. First, for finding corroboration of the 4 hour 55 minute time difference GMT/New York which was applied by navigators in 1912. This is the first time I've seen any hint of this slight but critical piece of evidence. Personally, I've been mystified by the statements of the officers on the time difference. Now, the mystery is gone thanks to Jim's work.

Secondly, I am personally gratified by the way he correctly assessed the time of the accident — that “11:40 p.m.” was not eleven hours and forty minutes past noon, but actually twelve hours and four minutes. His arguments based on standard shipboard operations and the use of ship's bells for keeping track of the watch are impeccable.

Most of the long-standing members of the board will recall that when I first suggested that the time of the accident was 12 hours 4 minutes past noon I was roundly criticized. In fact, some wanted my work to be “peer reviewed” off the E-T web site. Now, another seaman has not only come to the same conclusion, but also bravely published what we both believe to be the truth.

I suggest that members of this board take another look at my timeline of events published in the research papers. You will note that I used 12:04 as the time of the run between noon that Sunday and impact on the iceberg. So, Jim and I are in complete agreement — but, I must add that Jim's work was done quite separately from mine and starting from a different direction. He in no way copied from my timeline.

Of course, Jim and I are not members of a mutual admiration society. We have our differences, as all good researchers do. In future posts I will discuss these differences and their impact on both Jim's conclusions and mine. However, an ongoing minor family emergency will put that off for a few days.

In the meantime, to Jim: “Well done.”

— David G. Brown


PS -- Thanks Michael for sorting out the threads.
 

Martin Cooper

Member
Dec 13, 2007
146
6
123
Hello again Jim,

Yes I know what you mean about old age and computer savvy, it's hard work trying to work out what the younger generation of 'hi-tech speak' and 'computer gobbledegook' are talking about, but I do ask what things mean, and try to get advice about techno stuff so that I can keep struggling on (although still a little bamboozled).

David,

Hope all goes well with the family emergency.

Best regards, Martin.
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jun 28, 1998
1,690
18
313
Dublin
Hi Gents,

I am more than willing to entertain an argument as to a 12.04am (old time) impact.

However I have some constructive criticism to make of this article.

First of all, the picture at the beginning should be lost completely. It contains well-known officer misidentifications. Why parade errors that have nothing to do with the argument? Lose it, because it reflects badly. These people are not as labelled.

4h55 - Okay, very good! At least I now understand the oft-discussed 'missing five minutes.'

But this article is marred by a lot of simple calculation errors in the boxes. And I mean a lot.

This is even accepting for the sake of his argument, a Californian 1h45 time difference on New York.

(I do not actually see any proof of this 1h45 at all, but that is beside the point. Captain Lord speaks of being 1h50 ahead of New York, and he would have used the Reed's tables - therefore the difference was at the other end, on the GMT side.
It is stated as fact "the difference given between Californian time and Greenwich time was 3 hours 10 minutes" - and this is nowhere given in evidence to my knowledge. The difference is framed in evidence in terms of NYT (EST). Therefore, using 4h55 between Continents and Lord's 1h50, the GMT difference would be 3.05, and not 3.10).

But, as I said, let's use the article's own 1h45 difference, and look at the errors in the boxes.

If it is 10.20pm Californian time when she stops, then NYT should read 8.35pm (NOT 8.55pm). Because of the claimed 1.45 difference, right?

Similarly for this 10.20 Californian time, GMT should be 1.30am (to get 3.25 from NYT, plus 1.30 = 4.55 continental difference as per Reed). Bizarrely this is shown as 1.50am.

One can see these boxes are in error by taking the difference between the previous band of times, being the noon Californian. In the 10 hours 20 mins to get to 10.20pm Californian time, the NYT and GMT times do not advance by the same margins, as they should.

Now apply the same interval when Californian time goes from 10.20 to 11.40 when Groves claims to see the near visitor stop (Captain Lord thought this "Something like ourselves" had stopped ten minutes earlier!). The difference here is 1h20 mins.

But again the boxes do not march in lockstep to a 1.20 margin... yet the elapse must be the same!

At 11.40pm Californian time, it should (using thr 1h45 yardstick) be 9.55 NY (not 9.50), and thus 2.50 GMT (and not 2.45, which is only a 55min GMT difference from the previous GMT when Californian has done 1.20?!!)

Look, there are more problems... I'm not going to list them all. These intervals must agree. The boxes in this segment are plagued with errors.

And that's leaving out the unknown basis for a Californian 3h10 difference on GMT when the evidence is to the contrary.

And I haven't even addressed Titanic time. I'm gonna shut up now because I don't want to sound like a troll.

Cute article - but fix the errors, including '4th officer Lowe.'

But on the bigger picture, YES, it has been proven time and time again that 1h33 is the correct NY difference for the Titanic at the time of collision and thereafter, and that the nearby "something like ourselves" that visited the Californian that night was stopped when the unseen Titanic, far over the horizon, was still steaming.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Happy May to you Senan and thanks for the criticism. Let me clarify matters.

As for the illustration of the Officers:

These may be well known officer mis-identifications to you but not to me otherwise I would not have used the picture. This criticism suggests that I used the picture to inform... I did not. Perhaps you might put me and others who are misinformed on the right path?

Where does Lord say he is 1 hour 50 minutes ahead of New York? This is what he said at the beginning of the US Inquiry:

"Senator SMITH.
That is ship's time?

Mr. LORD.
At the ship's time for 47º 25' longitude.

Senator BURTON.
That was of longitude 47º 25' west?

Mr. LORD.
Yes, sir.

Senan; by telling the Senator the longitude he based his ship's time on, Captain Lord was effectively telling the Senator and everyone else that his ship time was 3 hours 10 minutes slow of GMT and consequently, because of the 4 hr 55 minutes difference in Reeds; 1 hour 45 minutes fast of New York.

Based on the Noon Longitude given to the Senator by Captain Lord, the exact time on board Californian if Lord faithfully adjusted his clock would be 3 hours 9 minutes 40 seconds slow of GMT and 1 hour.44 minutes 20 seconds fast of new York.
You write:
<I do not actually see any proof of this 1h45 at all, but that is beside the point. Captain Lord speaks of being 1h50 ahead of New York, and he would have used the Reed's tables - therefore the difference was at the other end, on the GMT side.
It is stated as fact "the difference given between Californian time and Greenwich time was 3 hours 10 minutes" - and this is nowhere given in evidence to my knowledge. The difference is framed in evidence in terms of NYT (EST). Therefore, using 4h55 between Continents and Lord's 1h50, the GMT difference would be 3.05, and not 3.10).

It certainly would - even I can do that wee sum. But I hope I have now convinced you that the secret of Californian's time lies with Lord's Noon longitude as he told the Senator and that firmly puts Californian 3 hours and 10 minutes behind GMT.


You are absolutely right about the sums though ... only 'HE' knows how that all came about... looks OK in my notes! They will be 'sorted'.

You say that the 1 hour 33 minute time difference has been proved time and time again. How was this done? Based on what evidence? Where can I find this proof?
As far as I can see - until now (barring the hieroglyphics in the tables)there has never been any proof of the 1 hour 33 difference. In fact, the calculations done by the 'experts' could never work out because of the use of the 5 hour difference between GMT and New York. Sure, everything pointed to it but in the absence of concrete proof; as long as that 5 hour difference was there, the evidence of Titanic's officers could be challenged and was done frequently and vociferously as you well know..

My article - apart from its 'cuteness'; by revealing the true time difference used by the navigators; proves beyond doubt the existence of a second ship near Titanic that night. It also also allows a proper examination of Titanic's run time, speed and perhaps the greatest mystery of all..how Boxhall arrived at his erroneous CQD.

While I grant, the sum bamboozle is unforgivable; the main thrust of the article needs to be examined in detail. The purists can concentrate on the bad spelling, grammar and arithmetic if it gives pleasure. Nothing's new there! my primary school teachers had a ball with that years before most of you were born.lol

JC
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jun 28, 1998
1,690
18
313
Dublin
PICTURE

>>Perhaps you might put me and others who are misinformed on the right path?<<

Taken on May 28, 1911 for the maiden voyage of the RMS Olympic. Painted out of the extreme left of the back row (ironically): Hugh McElroy,l later purser on the RMS Titanic.

BACK ROW
L-R 3rd Officer Cater, 2nd Officer Hume, 4th Officer Alexander, 6th Officer Holehouse.

FRONT ROW
L-R 5th Officer Tullock, Chf Officer Evans, Captain E.J. Smith, 1st Officer Murdoch.

No Pitman, Lowe, Boxhall etc...

This image was originally issued post disaster as a postcard, claiming to be the officers of the Titanic on a cash-in basis. Lazy authors inported it into their works on the assumption that it was what it claimed to be. Not so.

Inger Sheil did good work on this about 13 years ago in sourcing separate ID photos of Holehouse etc, to establish for good who these men were - in an effort to nail a myth.

That's why it's disappointing to see it lead a research article on Encyclopedia Titanica.
 

Walter Flynn

Member
Dec 23, 2010
63
0
96
There's an old saying, wrongly credited to P.T.Barnum, but worthy of mention here that says:
"There's a sucker born every minute".

Forget about the misinformative picture. It's the misinformation given about "the true time difference used by the navigators" that discredits this entire piece. I'll leave it to the more credible researchers to figure this one out.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>It's the misinformation given about "the true time difference used by the navigators" that discredits this entire piece. I'll leave it to the more credible researchers to figure this one out.<<

Meaning you can't?

Being mindful that this in and of itself wouldn't prove Captain Jim right and you wrong, but if you disagree with the piece, it would enhance your own credibility if you would explain why and provide the supporting evidence to back it up.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Good day to you Senan!

Thanks for the information.

I painted out Hugh McElroy. Being a Purser, he does not figure in the article.

You use the term 'lazy authors'. A bit strong I would suggest; describing as such, we mere mortals who indulge in this site for a bit of simple enjoyment. Rather than lazy; perhaps not as enthusiastic as you? I bet you a pound to a pinch of the nasty stuff that less than 100th of 1% of people seeing that old photograph for the first time, would detect it to be a fake.
In any case; what does it really matter at this late hour in the day.

All of those in that photograph and the actual individuals they are meant to represent.. I emphasise 'represent', are long dead and gone. I'm sure anyone interested in what individuals actually looked like have long before now sourced proper 'snaps' of these people.
In fact, the picture itself is so bad that some of the faces almost look like an identi-fit composition. However, to keep on your right side; I have sent an amendment to Phil in the hope he can make a substitute. I tried to do it myself and failed miserably.

Cheers!

JC
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Pay particular attention to the last sentence in Michael's post Walter; do your best with this one. I actually challenge you here and now, in public to show where my information is mis-informing anyone. Apart from 1+1 = 3 etc. or the misnaming of someone or bouts of dyslexia etc., I guarantee, if you can show me where the main thrust of the article is incorrect then I will be the first to acknowledge it. The bottom line is: If you wish us to believe you know so much about the subject; why not give us all the benefit of 'what you know better'?

JC

PS: I am quite happy to discuss this article in public with any serious researcher. Senan started the ball rolling. I am not too old to learn the error of my ways!
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jun 28, 1998
1,690
18
313
Dublin
Hi Jim,

You and I are not adversaries, certainly not in these happy days for democracy... I just think the small errors get in the way of your selling your bigger 'truth,' as you would see it.

For readers to have confidence in what you prescribe, there should not be minor annoyances to those readers.

I'm moving on from the picture. It's been pointed out to you, that's it.

>>Where does Lord say he is 1 hour 50 minutes ahead of New York?<<

In the evidence. I'm going to cite it in a moment. First, can I give expression to some personal peeves for your consideration.

Firstly, I don't know why you have felt the need to take your argument into the area of the Californian. You should concentrate on establishing your primary point - which you plaintively appeal to be addressed in a recent post. But you have introduced these extraneous matters...

If you hadn't opened up this other territory, you wouldn't have boxes with errors in them, because you wouldn't have boxes in the first place. By the way, there are still errors - so I am withholding any mark out of ten. For example, in the one hour and twenty minutes it takes the Californian clock to advance from 10.20 to 11.40, the GMT box only advances by one hour fifteen minutes.

I rather feel you should have a) not have gone into this secondary market, as it were; and b) should have tested your times to death.

You will be irritated now and say something sarcastic, but there we are...

Thirdly, when you go into this other area (Californian 20 miles from Titanic I think you agree! Hardly relevant) you should not make assumptions.

Your whole vibe is to challenge conventional wisdom, but in this segment you deploy the worst type of Titanic-thing-written-in-a-book, and without questioning it.

You don't know that the first Titanic rocket was fired at 12.47am her time. That's absolute rubbish. It is an adopted shibboleth, a myth... It's based on a really d-u-m-b linkage to an inherently unsound belief that the first lifeboat left at this time. In fact that's not true. Pitman said his boat (No. 5) went at 12.25, and his was the second boat in the water. The first rockets went off about 27 minutes before you ascribe, and by the evidence. So this box is meaningless and bears no relation to any sightings on the Californian. See my research article "12.45 - A Time to Go."

Back to the claim about Capt Lord's ship time as it bore relation to New York.

You clarify your article to state:

quote:

By telling the Senator the longitude he based his ship's time on, Captain Lord was effectively telling the Senator and everyone else that his ship time was 3 hours 10 minutes slow of GMT

Yeah... I don't like it being said that Captains "effectively" say something when they in fact actually say something else. That shows how inflexible a mind I have, I guess.

But you asked for the reference to his *stated* 1h50 [not 1.45] and I shall give it. But here let it be noted that you don't much note your own citations in the article. It may be a personal cavill of mine, but it makes it hard to check the context of your quotes... maybe you don't have the US Inquiry? If you did, page numbers would be most helpful. If not, where is it in general terms in a person's evidence? (Boxhall recalled, Day 16, middle - for example, if you are only using the online transcript. You repeatedly say "he told the inquiry" - but I would appreciate you saying "he told the British inquiry" or "he told the US inquiry" and indicating a reference.

And so to my references. as requested -

Captain Lord:
"There is an hour and fifty minutes time between
New York and my noon position on the 14th."
(US p. 720 line 14-15.)

You can see he is talking about his noon position on the 14th which is exactly what you are talking about, and he is not "effectively" saying 1h45, he is expressly saying 1h50.

(Wireless operator Evans offered 1h55, it should be noted for the record.] Anyway, whether Lord is dealing with your citation of Reed's tables at a 4h55 difference between Continents, or adopting a 5 hour difference for convenience, is now a distinction that need not detain us. If he is using Reed, it is clear that the infamous "missing five minutes" is on the Greenwich side.

He says an hour and fifty minutes, and so the secondary argument of yours about the "popular 1 hour 50 minutes as used by researchers" is explained - because it is in the evidence. The man declared the situation.

So I am sorry to bang on and on, but it is you who put this clutter into the article, and I personally would like to see all clutter out of the way so that I can take a look at the lie of the land.

I have reservations about some of your assumptions on the wider front, and I do think you should "discover" some of the points to the contrary, if only to weigh them in the balance. Your theory should be tested remorselessly if it is to gain credence.

I recollect I turned over to you in a past thread some material (I think from Fleet) that was very helpful to your cause... but I still have misgivings about the fact that nobody in evidence found it worth mentioning that the collision came "only four minutes after we put the clocks back." I would expect to see that, or somesuch, but those called in evidence are silent on the subject.

And of course you leave out what I pointed out before, the evidence of Hichens -

"At 10 o'clock I went to the wheel, sir... All went along very well until 20 minutes to 12,"
(US p. 450, middle)

AND

Q. How long had you been at the wheel when the collision occurred?
Hichens: 'One hour and forty minutes, sir.'

By your theory, he should have been at the wheel some two hours and four minutes.

But he denies it.

There we are. As I say, I regard you as being on the side of the Angels. Your natural seafaring instinct and wealth of experience far exceeds many a blinkered and unthinking posture, sat immobile and immutable in its armchair, needless to say... so we needn't fight, although I suspect you do like your long and involved threads, if the past provides a guide...

Me, I don't have the luxury of retirement and must work.​
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jun 28, 1998
1,690
18
313
Dublin
Oops! citation missing.

Hichens
Q. How long had you been at the wheel when the collision occurred?
Hichens: 'One hour and forty minutes, sir.'
(US Inquiry, p. 449, bottom two lines.)

I'm not persuaded by the eight bells argument on its own. Eight bells comes at the end of the watch - whether that's 12 midnight (new time), or 12.24am old time.

What you need, and what is lacking, is someone saying that eight bells were sounded "twenty minutes" after the accident... then you are in business.

Perhaps Symons' account of his movement from the forecastle comes closest. But it is very vague.
 

Walter Flynn

Member
Dec 23, 2010
63
0
96
OK, so want me to point the ways.

First, I think Senan made some good points. Don't clutter one issue by introducing another. All should take heed. That's if you care about being objective.

Secondly, as Senan pointed out, Capt. Lord said in evidence: "There is an hour and fifty minutes time between New York and my noon position on the 14th." (p. 720 US).

He also said, "At the ship's time for 47º 25' longitude." (p. 715 US).

Noon at that longitude on 14 Apr 1912 was at 15:09:57 GMT, or after rounding out the seconds, 3:10pm GMT. That's 3h 10m ahead of ship's time. So according to Lord, his ship was 1h 50m ahead of NY, and from his longitude evidence, 3h 10m behind GMT. That makes the difference between NY time and GMT exactly 5h 0m, as it is today, and as it was back then.

That Reed's table has nothing to do with what time was kept in those cities, and you should have known that. To say that it was used by navigators for that purpose is misinformation in my book. It's nothing more than a table of local mean times based on longitudes. The NY entry of 4h 55m behind GMT is for the location of Ambrose tower which marks the entry to NY harbor. Position is: 40° 27′ 36″ N, 73° 49′ 48″ W. Its local mean time is exactly 4h 55m 19.2s behind GMT.

As to that clock set back stuff, thank you Senan for citing Hichens. But you also could have cited Boxhall.

15652. And had been on duty for 3 1/2 hours when the accident happened? - Yes.

He didn't offer a correction by saying, 'No, I had been on duty 4 hours when the accident happened' or some such thing.

And Senan also said, "but I still have misgivings about the fact that nobody in evidence found it worth mentioning that the collision came "only four minutes after we put the clocks back." I would expect to see that, or somesuch, but those called in evidence are silent on the subject."

Not quite so. There is some 'somesuch' in evidence as you call it. It is given by Haines who said, "The right time, without putting the clock back, was 20 minutes to 12." (p. 656 US).

It doesn't get clearer than that except for those who try to muddy the waters to fit their need.
 

Walter Flynn

Member
Dec 23, 2010
63
0
96
Sorry for the way the coordinates of Ambrose showed up in my post above. This should be clearer:
40° 27' 36" N, 73° 49' 48" W.
 

Bill McMillan

Member
Sep 18, 2010
5
0
71
Hello everyone,

I’ve been interested in the Titanic for many years, but the whole question of the timing of events is something I’ve never looked closely at, so I’m really enjoying this discussion.

If the clocks were set back by 24 min at the “first” midnight (midnight by April 14th time), and the collision occurred 4 min later, then the collision would have occurred at 12:04 am on the 15th (by April 14th time). As I understand it, many passengers in lifeboats stated that the ship sank at 2:20 am. Since the passengers would not have set their watches back at midnight, their watches would be showing April 14th time (I assume) That would make the time from collision to sinking 2h 16m (rather than 2h 40m, as is usually stated). Is that correct?

If the clocks were set back, I’m surprised that there was no mention of it (as far as I know) from the surviving bridge crew. What about Harold Bride? As a radio operator, would he have been aware of any time change? When the master clock was changed on the bridge, would that change the clock in the Marconi room?
I look forward to any comments on my questions.

Bill McMillan
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Quite a contribution Senan but I asked for it! No. I'm not 'fizzing' , just mildly amused that you are so bogged down with bits and pieces. Perhaps its an intellectual thought-thing? I have found this often when having arguments with lay people so you are in good company. However, in carefully reading the article, you have done what others should have done... looked at the numbers! I thank you for that.

Involvement of Californian is deliberate because the two ships are inextricably linked by the verdict of the two Inquiries. As one who has made a pretty good living out of marine accident investigation (and still do - yes, I work on occasion) I fervently believe in the edict that everyone is telling the truth unless proved otherwise. Consequently, since there is no proof to the contrary, I firmly believe Captain Lord was telling the truth about where his ship stopped that night. It follows that I believe the distance and direction he gave between his ship and where everyone (until 1985) thought Titanic had gone down. If he was trying to distance himself and his ship from the disaster, he had a god-send in that the rockets seen from Californian were bearing 70 degrees to the left of where everyone believed Titanic was firing them from. Consequently, Lord could have argued that the ones seen by Mr. Stone could not have been from Titanic. He did not make any attempt to argue this obvious anomaly at the time.
The establishing of the proper ship time on board Titanic proves the presence of another ship near to Californian. If Lord was truthful about that why then should he lie about anything else? After all, when he first told his story, he could not be sure that some ship master or one of that man's crew would not come forward as did the man Ernest Gill. He could only have been sure of that if there was not a ship nearby but then why would he and three of his deck staff say there was one there?

As to the enigma concerning time on Californian:

The first thing any serious investigator should ask is: why would an experienced navigator give two different values for ship's time? As I pointed out; Captain Lord gave ship's time in terms of Noon longitude = 3 hours and 10 minutes slow of GMT. You point out, Captain Lord told the American Inquiry (OK?) that the time difference between his ship and New York was 1 hour 50 minutes It certainly was however, at that time, he was talking to a layman about the difference between ship time and Standard Time in New York. At that time, as you probably already know, New Yorkers used a time difference of exactly 5 hours between them and Greenwich. However, at sea on Californian and Titanic, they did not use 5 hours but 4 hours 55 minutes. The reason for this was that they used GMT when navigating and they related ship time to GMT.. not to any Local Mean time. They used GMT for referring to navigation tables and for notation in the ship's log book. They would do it automatically. That's why Lightoller gave the time difference between New York and Titanic as 1 hour 33 minutes. Both ships were using the same time bases. It follows that time comparisons between the ships would only be correct if the latter time difference is used. Incidentally: I have no idea what you mean by 'on the Greenwich side'.

I agree about the rocket firing time. It's in there as a teaser as are a few others! It comes from various sources which based their times on 'conventional wisdom' but that's another line needing looked into using the proper Watch times.

As for convincing you of 1 bell and 8 bells...Let me pose an hypothetical question: If you were an Able Seaman on board a ship expecting to go on Watch and you did not have a personal time piece handy or if you did, it had stopped ages previously; how would you know when your time off had finished and you had to go back to work? I'll answer that for you; either when you were called at 1 bell or if you heard 8 bells ringing. If none of the foregoing, you would be late for work and get your backside felt big time. However, if you did hear 8 bells as heard by the lookout and went on Watch and were greeted by ' what the heck are you doing up here at this time' it would be more than bells you would want to ring!

You quote Hitchens but I note you miss this bit out:

"[Hitchens]I stayed to the wheel, then, sir, until 23 minutes past 12. I do not know whether they put the clock back or not. The clock was to go back that night 47 minutes, 23 minutes in one watch and 24 in the other."

Hardly the statement of a man sure of his facts? However,by this evidence, since it was etiquette to relieve a man 1 minute early; Hitchens was due to be relieved at 1 minute to midnight on a retarded clock, 23 minutes past midnight on one that had not yet been retarded and possibly 23 minutes minutes after midnight by a relief who was late being called. Since you agree on the 12 hours 4 minute run time then only the last fits. it also fits with the fact that the 12 to 4 QMs were not called by QM Olliver whose job it was, but by the Carpenter, after that man had done his soundings and reported his findings to the captain. We know this because QM Olliver was sent down very shortly after impact and found the Carpenter already sounding the compartments.

As for the sounding of 8 bells. Fleet heard them and said so.
"17319. Until eight bells?
- Till eight bells went.

17320. At eight bells, in the ordinary course, you were relieved?
- Yes."

Who do you suppose rang them?
Hogg said the impact took place 20 minutes before impact and that he remained up in the Crow's nest until 20 past 12.. a total of 40 minutes. If it was 20 past midnight 'old time' when he saw the activity on the boat deck, and Hitchens had not yet been relieved then Hogg and Evans had gone on Watch 24 minte too early and Hitchens ignored the telephone. Do you really and truly believe this?

Sorry about this Marathon I was conversing with fellow professionals, this would be much shorter. 'eggs and grannies'come to mind. And... yes, as I said, I still do work from time to time. But it's really only my wife who does the proper work. She's a house wife!

Cheers,

Walter.. you really keep trying, I have to grant you that.


You start by suggesting you are going to point out the error of my ways then proceed to quote someone else's work. As icing on the cake, you refer me to what I already wrote about! Perhaps you noted that I did say that the Noon longitude for Californian was equal to 3 hours 10 minutes slow of GMT?
However you completely miss the point of the whole exercise. Let me quickly remind you: It was to find out where the missing 5 minutes suggested by Lightoller's 1 hr 55 minute difference between Titanic and New York came from. The rest arises from this.

You then state the obvious "Reed's table has nothing to do with what time was kept in those cities, and you should have known that".

I did know that Walter. So did Captain Lord and his questioner. All Lord did was subtract his Noon GMT from the Local standard time which he knew was 5 hours slow of Greenwich. You just don't understand. Navigators thought in terms of ship or GMT not Local Mean time. Not every country had sophisticated standardised zone time systems as they had in Europe and the US. That's why Reeds chose the nearest sea longitude to a place. Believe it or not; all ships did not run to and from New York.

<It is given by Haines who said, "The right time, without putting the clock back, was 20 minutes to 12." (p. 656 US).

What was the right time by putting the clock back?

I've seen this argument before. It just illustrates your lack of understanding. You and others who quote this should ask themselves why Haines did not just tell the time as it was? Why was there a need for him to explain about clock changes? Could there be a simple explanation? Was it that Haines answered in this way so as not to confuse the issue? If you have ever tried to tell a lay person how clock adjustments between Watches on board ship are made, you would know what I mean. These pages are full of lengthy attempts to do so. No my friend; The correct time as far as Passengers and New York and the rest of the world was concerned was 4 minutes past midnight by 14th April time. There would be no new correct time for non Watch keepers until the full 47 minute clock set back had been made. Haines' questioner was not a Watch Keeper but Haines was telling him what he thought the man wanted to hear. Very simple.

"It doesn't get clearer than that except for those who try to muddy the waters to fit their need."

I must confess to be completely unclear as to the point you are making Walter if indeed you are making one. Perhaps it's all this muddy water you talk about? However, I do resent the pointed insult to my intelligence.

It puzzles me a little that even though there is no clear proof that Titanic's officers were lying about ship's speed that night, you and everyone else have far failed to comment on the re-working of Boxhall's erroneous CQD position. Let's hear it from you then.


JC
 

Similar threads

Similar threads