Titanic's Distress Rockets

[Paul Slish]

I now continue from my post of September 26, 2008, 241 a.m.

Now Lord says he see the light of a ship while talking to the engineer and at some point goes to the wireless operator, Evans. Evans tells Captain Lord the only ship he is picking up is the Titanic. Lord says the ship I see is not the Titanic. It does not have the blaze of light of a major passenger ship. He tells Evans to send a message to Titanic warning her about the ice.

This message is time stamped at 9:05 p.m. New York time by Evans. To be as conservative as possible I will only take one minute for Lord to walk to and talk to Evans. And again to be conservative I will assume Evans time stamped when he began to send the message, not after sending it. So Lord is describing this ship at 9:04 p.m. New York time at the very latest. Now Californian, based upon her noon longitude of 47 25 W, is running her clock 1 hour 50 minutes ahead of New York time. So Lord is describing the ship at 10:54 p.m. ship's time at the latest.

Lord says the ship stops about 11:30 p.m. So there is a minimum of 36 minutes of steaming between talking to the wireless operator and seeing the ship stop.

Now lets see if this could be the Titanic. Titanic is on a course of S 86 W true or 266 true. She is steaming at 22 knots. She covers 13.2 miles in 36 minutes.

We are told her bearing at 12:10 p.m. from Californian when stopped is SSE by the standard compass. A point is 11.25 degrees. Stone is giving this bearing in units of a point (11.25 deg.). So we can't be more precise than half a point with this bearing or roughly 5.5 degrees one way or the other from SSE. The compass error for the Californian on her ENE heading (by compass) is 22 degrees west according to Captain Lord. So the true bearing is 135 degrees (SE true if precise to one degree) plus or minus 5.5 degrees.

I will do my calculations for a true bearing of 135 degrees and 140 degrees to keep it simple. The bearing of 140 degrees would place the Titanic closest at 10:54 p.m. when Lord talks to the wireless operator, as I will demonstrate. I will skip calculating 130 degrees, as that would place Titanic farthest away.

Some suggest the Titanic stopped 12 miles off from the Californian. I will also use the figure of 13 miles off.

We can draw a triangle and use trigonometry to calculate how far away the Titanic would be at 10:54 p.m. Californian time. At these distances the difference between spherical trigonometry and plane trigonometry is just a matter of feet. It is a negligible difference.

The leg of the triangle from Californian to stopped Titanic is 12 miles. The leg from stopped Titanic to Titanic at 10:54 p.m. is 13.2 miles. If the Titanic bears 135 true the angle between these two legs is 131 degrees. Now we solve for the leg between Californian and where Titanic was at 10:54 p.m. and we find it is 22.94 miles or 23 miles using our level of precision. But Captain Lord can only see a light 145 feet above sea level even using the maximum formula for refraction 21 miles. The masthead light will be over the horizon from Captain Lord standing on a deck at most 30 feet above the waterline. He couldn’t see it at 10:54 p.m.

Lets push the Titanic out to 13 miles from the Californian. Now its distance from Californian at 10:54 p.m. is 23.84 miles or 24 miles, which is even farther away. Captain Lord can’t see it.

Lets change the true bearing for the stopped Titanic from 135 degrees to 140 degrees. We cannot guarantee Stone was more precise than half a point (roughly 5.5 degrees) with his compass bearing. If Titanic stops 12 miles off she is 22.46 miles off or 22 miles at 10:54 p.m. That is still too far for Captain Lord to see. If Titanic stops 13 miles off she is 23.34 miles off or 23 miles at 10:54 p.m. That is still too far for Captain Lord to see.

It is very difficult to conclude the ship Captain Lord sees at 10:54 p.m. at the latest is the Titanic.

But perhaps one may argue Titanic stopped at only 11.5 miles off. Perhaps she stopped at 11:28 p.m. because Captain Lord only said she stopped about 11:30. Groves has her stopping at 11:40 p.m., which would put Titanic even farther away at 10:54 p.m. So perhaps everything worked out so that the masthead light was just creeping over the horizon and Captain Lord sights her at 10:54 p.m.

If all we had was the information above, one could conclude it is quite unlikely that Captain Lord sighted the Titanic at 10:54 p.m., but it is not impossible.

But there is more pertinent information to be found in Captain Lord's testimony.

To be continued.

 

[Paul Slish]

I now continue my post of September 27, 2008 at 11:40 p.m. (how appropriate!)

But there is more information in Captain Lord’s testimony that directly bears (pun intended) on this scenario. Let’s go to the testimony.

“6715. Now close upon 11 o'clock did you see a steamer's light? - I did.

The Commissioner: 11 o'clock when?

The Attorney-General: At night, my Lord.

The Commissioner: This was on Sunday night?

6716. (The Attorney-General.) Yes. (To the Witness.) This was on Sunday night that you had stopped? - After we had stopped.

6717. And you saw a steamer's light. Was it approaching you? - It was approaching me from the eastward.

6718. How did it bear? - I did not get the bearings of it; I was just noticing it casually from the deck.

6719. Where was it? On your quarter? - It was on the starboard side.

6720. What did you see - what light? - I just saw a white light to commence with.”

So to commence with Captain Lord with his naked eyes just makes out a single white light. This is what we would expect when first observing a ship approaching.

“6721. Did you then ask your wireless operator what ships he had? - Yes, I went to his room and I asked him what ships he had.

6722. That means from what ships he had had messages? - What ships he had been in communication with.

6723. What did he say? - "Nothing, only the 'Titanic.'"

6724. Did you think that the vessel approaching you was the "Titanic"? - No, I remarked at the time that was not the "Titanic."

6725. How could you tell that? - You can never mistake those ships - by the blaze of light.

6726. I am not quite sure that I understand you - you told us you had seen one light? - First.”

Captain Lord reiterates that he initially (first) observed just one light. But after a little while what does he see?

“6727. Then as she was approaching you, did you see more? - I saw more lights.

6728. Did you see any sidelights? - I saw a green light.

6729. And did you see any deck lights? - A few.”

Captain Lord can now make out some deck lights.

“6730. It was sufficiently close for that? - Oh, yes, she was getting closer all the time.

6731. About what distance approximately did you consider she was from you? - At 11 o'clock?

6732. I was going to ask you the distance at the time this conversation took place, and you said it was not the "Titanic"? - I suppose she was six or seven miles away. That is only approximately.”

Now here is the key point. What is Captain Lord seeing at the time he is talking to the wireless operator?

The Commissioner: What lights did you see at the time this conversation was taking place.

6733. (The Attorney-General.) I thought that was what he was saying. (To the Witness.) Will you tell us what lights you saw at the time you had this conversation with the Marconi operator? - I saw one masthead light and a few other white lights, but I do not say I noticed the green light then; I was not paying a great deal of attention to her.

6734. (The Commissioner.) Were the white lights bearing from east on your starboard side? - Coming from the eastward on our starboard side, my Lord.

6735. And you saw some other lights. What were they? - They might have been anything - lights from the portholes, doorways, or anything at all.

So at the time Captain Lord was talking to the wireless operator (10:54 p.m. at the latest) he can ALREADY MAKE OUT INDIVIDUAL DECK LIGHTS WITH THE NAKED EYE! He IS NOT just seeing a masthead light creeping over the horizon.

6736. But no coloured light? - I did not notice any then.

The Commissioner: I understand it now.

6737. (The Attorney-General.) You said it was not the "Titanic." Did you give him any directions? Did you tell him to let the "Titanic" know? - I said, "Let the 'Titanic' know that we are stopped, surrounded by ice."

6738. Do you remember at what time that message was sent? - About 11 o'clock.

6739. About 11 o'clock that night, ship's time? - Ship's time.

We know based upon Cyril Evan’s testimony that the message was sent at 10:55 p.m. ship’s time.

Let’s summarize. While Captain Lord is talking to the wireless operator he says, “I saw one masthead light and a few other white lights.” “They might have been anything - lights from the portholes, doorways, or anything at all.”

Captain Lord can make out a few individual lights besides the masthead light with his naked eyes (no binoculars) at 10:54 p.m. at the latest.

Now here is a table about the Titanic based upon the calculations I performed above.

If the other ship bears 135 true 12 miles off from the Californian at 11:30 p.m. then she is off 23 miles at 10:54 p.m.

If the other ship bears 135 true 13 miles off from the Californian at 11:30 p.m. then she is off 24 miles at 10:54 p.m.

If the other ship bears 140 true 12 miles off from the Californian at 11:30 p.m. then she is off 22 miles at 10:54 p.m.

If the other ship bears 140 true 13 miles off from the Californian at 11:30 p.m. then she is off 23 miles at 10:54 p.m.

So if the ship seen by Captain Lord is the Titanic he is able to make out a few individual lights on the deck when she is anywhere from 22 to 24 miles off. And this is with the naked eyes!

For me this is beyond belief. This is beyond credulity. How can you make out distinct lights from at least 22 miles off with the naked eyes?

Captain Lord’s evidence impels me to the conclusion that he was not seeing the Titanic, just as he said.

How could he or anyone else make out individual lights around the deck at 22 miles or more off with the naked eyes?

But there is even more that can be deduced from Captain Lord’s testimony.

These deck lights were not 145 feet above the waterline if this ship was the Titanic.

The Titanic’s boat deck was 70 feet above the waterline. The officers’ quarters were on this deck and some other raised roofs over first class lounges. So what would be the highest lights besides the masthead light? Probably about 80 feet. But lets be as liberal as possible and say there were a few that were 90 feet above the waterline.

Using our formula based upon the curvature of the earth how far away could Captain Lord see these lights. Captain Lord can see 6.9 miles to his horizon. Then an object 90 feet above the waterline could be seen an additional 11.1 miles. So the farthest distance Captain Lord could see a light 90 feet above the water is 18 miles. If these lights were 80 feet above the waterline, which I think is more likely if it was the Titanic, then the farthest Captain Lord could see them is about 17.5 miles.

But the chart above demonstrates the Titanic was at least 22 miles away when Captain Lord was conversing with the wireless operator at 10:54 p.m. at the latest.

So there are two difficulties in Captain Lord making out distinct lights on the approaching ship at 10:54 p.m., and that ship stops 12 or 13 miles off at 11:30 p.m. bearing half a point (5.5 degrees) one way or the other from 135 degrees true.

1. How could he make out distinct lights at a minimum 22 miles off with the naked eyes?

2. The lights would be below the horizon. He could not see them at all. They would not creep over the horizon until the ship was within 18 or 17.5 miles. But the ship is at least 22 miles off at this time.

Therefore I strongly conclude the ship Captain Lord was viewing at 10:54 p.m. was not the Titanic.

Someone might object that Captain Lord lied and did not see any ship’s light or lights at 10:54 p.m. He made it up to cover for himself.

First, what basis does anyone have for accusing Captain Lord of perjury when he had an excellent reputation all through his career up to this time?

Secondly, the wireless operator, Cyril Evans was present when Lord gave this part of his testimony in London. The Californian men had not yet been asked to exit. Would Captain Lord be so brazen as to boldly lie about a conversation he never had, when the wireless operator could have contradicted him when he testified later? Also the chief engineer could have been called to ascertain if a ship’s lights were in sight when Lord went to the wireless operator.

Captain Lord said the following at the US Senate hearings in Washington, DC.

“When I came off the bridge, at half past 10, I pointed out to the officer that I thought I saw a light coming along, and it was a most peculiar light [night], and we had been making mistakes all along with the stars, thinking they were signals. We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm. He said he thought it was a star, and I did not say anything more. I went down below. I was talking with the engineer about keeping the steam ready, and we saw these signals coming along, and I said "There is a steamer passing. Let us go to the wireless and see what the news is." But on our way down I met the operator coming, and I said, "Do you know anything?" He said, "The Titanic."

So, then, I gave him instructions to let the Titanic know. I said, "This is not the Titanic; there is no doubt about it."”

Wireless Operator Evans was right in the room as Captain Lord was giving this testimony. Again would Lord lie right in front of him knowing Evans could contradict him? Lord also mentioned the chief engineer here. The engineer could have been called or asked to give a deposition.

I believe Captain Lord was telling the truth. I have no doubt of that.

My final conclusion: Captain Lord did not see the Titanic. He said he saw a steamer “something like ourselves”, the Californian. He said he saw a medium size steamer. As far as I'm concerned, he was correct.

I intend to polish up these three posts on this subject and submit them to one of the Titanic related journals.

 

[Jim Currie]

Good morning Gentlemen!

First; I would point out that you Sam have been registered since 2002 and you Paul since 2006. I on the other hand am a very new first year Apprentice at this game.

I have a great deal to learn about this subject and am doing so by reading all the available evidence. What others have written with individual conclusions - while of great interest - is not my main source of intelligence. I have been gathering my information and applying practical and academic knowledge as well as -I hope- common sense to it.

The purpose of publishing my opinions as I go along is not merely to air them. I do so as a means of triggering -hopefully - constructive response which might confirm the direction I'm going in or re-direct me on another tack.

Sam, the known heading of a ship when stopped has everything to do with how a seaman refers to direction. When he looks out from his vessel he gauges direction in his mind relative to points on the bow- particularly at 4 point intervals.
How else would he be able to say with a fair amount of certainty that an object was-as you suggest-ESE? That's 2 points forward of the beam from a vessel heading NE true and I only know that because I know the vessel's head. On the other hand, if you asked me the bearing of a vessel on my starboard beam when on the same vessel I would have to say about SE. If you asked me to point to the eastward I would point to about halfway between the bow and the starboard beam.

No one today has suggested that these rockets did not come from Titanic.

I don't know about where Paul is going but I do know there remains more unanswered questions concerning the players in this saga. I for one am not ready to make a final judgement while these questions remain unanswered.

The problem , as I see it, lies with the approach.

You have produced some very well constructed arguments concerning ships lights but these are based on theoretic values. As you know, in the real world, many things interfere with perfection. The principal on in this instance is the state of the sea.
It was absolutely flat calm, barely a ripple and the swell was negligible - perfect conditions for sky reflection.
Several times, witnesses suggested a 'haze'. My belief, having seen this on many occasions , was that what they were seeing was sky reflection. The 'Milky Way' can in fact have a tremendous effect, given the right condition.
I wonder if you factored that into your assessment of the visibility of lights? Not the 'Milky Way' as such but the effect of reflected starlight. Believe me! it is a wondrous sight on a cold, clear dark night with nothing to effect your night vision

No one has argued that a ship's lights - given absolute values of power, and construction etc. etc - will not throw a light for a certain distance. Nor that such lights have luminosity equal to a particular heavenly body. Additionally no one argues that a perfect human eye will see these lights in perfect conditions of visibility. However the key words here are 'absolute' and 'perfect'. The only absolute rules concerning ship's lights are the ones laid down concerning minimum distances these lights must be seen. These minimum distances apply to persons with 50-50 and almost perfect colour vision. Navigating officers must comply with the BOT eyesight requirements.

This brings me to my assessment of what Lord saw on that night relative to his approaching mystery vessel. If both of us are right and Lord did see Titanic at extreme range then Lord's eyesight was spot-on. It might also mean that his estimate of how far off the vessel on his beam was, was also correct. This would mean, if you are correct, that Titanic was no more than six miles away when she sank. That would also fit in nicely with all the other Titanic estimates of how far off their mystery lights were. It would also dove-tail with your theory about how Titanic was heading when she finally sank.

If however, I am correct then nothing fits.

If there was at least one vessel between Californian and Titanic then the idea of the latter sinking while heading to the northward becomes just that - an idea based on selective acceptance of evidence.
Lord's claimed position becomes reasonable.
Stone's claim that the rockets he saw were fired from beyond the ship he was observing also becomes reasonable.
If all these points are resolved and the circumstances were roughly as Stone and Co. suggested then Lord's claims also become reasonable. Indeed what we would then have was the master of a ship being unaware of the true gravity of situation nearby and only really finding out about it some six hours after it happened.

The vilifiers of Lord should truthfully answer this question: at what point and under what circumstances should Lord have called his radio officer? Was it on the first unconfirmed report of rockets being fired or the second one?
If the second one then it was already too late to do much good. The erroneous CQD would have made sure of that. Remember Lord would have received mixed intelligence and conflicting information. If Stone had seen Titanic's rockets then either Titanic was in the wrong place or Californian was. Everyone except Lord and Moor accepted the CQD. Heavens! even Rostron accepted it.
If Californian's DR was reasonably accurate then it would have taken him until around to reach Boxhall's CQD. He would then have been in sight of Carpathia 12 to 14 miles to the SE. Even at that time neither of these ships would be aware of the true situation. Unless Carpathia shared her information, Californian would remain in the vicinity of the CQD for some time - on the wrong side of the ice barrier.
Why do I bring up the foregoing? Because if Lord learned about one rocket only at around 0045 hrs - the inclusion of Californian in the answers to Q24 was a gross injustice. Her inactivity did not in any way contribute to the loss of life. Being accused of inactivity is one thing but the linking of it to loss of life was disgraceful.

By the way Sam, the reason you could not find any reference to Gibson's 0110 rocket was because it's not there. That was my estimate based on the interval between the last three rockets.

There are a few questions that still need answering e.g:

1. Since Gill was just below the lookout in the crows nest at 0030hrs - why did he not point the rockets out to him. I know he said he thought the bridge would know about them.
2. Was the Californian's lookout questioned?
3. Was the duty QM questioned?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Jim Currie]

PS I forgot to add Californian's hypothetic ETA at the CQD it should read 0330hrs.

Jim.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Trying to put this thread back on tract a bit, let's get back to the rockets seen by Californian and what that implied.

>>I believe Captain Lord was telling the truth. I have no doubt of that.<<

Well I do have some doubts about that. That's were you and I differ Paul. If Lord was always telling the truth, then there are a few things that need to be explained away, which have not yet been dealt with satisfactorily.

Consider what Lord said in testimony about what Stone told him about the rockets.

LORD:

At 20 minutes to 1 I whistled up the speaking tube and asked him [2/O Stone] if she was getting any nearer. He said, "No; she is not taking any notice of us." So, I said "I will go and lie down a bit." At a quarter past he said, "I think she has fired a rocket." He said, "She did not answer the Morse lamp and she has commenced to go away from us." I said, "Call her up and let me know at once what her name is. So, he put the whistle back, and, apparently, he was calling. I could hear him ticking over my head. Then l went to sleep...[I heard] nothing more until about something between then and half past 4, I have a faint recollection of the apprentice opening the room door; opening it and shutting it. I said "What is it?" He did not answer and I went to sleep again. I believe the boy came down to deliver me the message that this steamer had steamed away from us to the southwest, showing several of these flashes or white rockets; steamed away to the southwest.

Lord certainly had the two signed letters from Stone and Gibson with the details of what they saw to go by, plus his own memory of what was told to him at the time he testified.

Now what did Stone tell Lord when he called him on the speaking tube? Lord said that Stone told him that he thought she fired "a rocket," that's ONE rocket, and that the ship "has commenced to go away from us." So if we believe Lord was telling the truth, then Stone told him that this mystery ship was steaming away when he first called down the speaking tube to report about seeing "a rocket." If this was really after the 2nd rocket seen, as Gibson wrote from what Stone told him, then it fits with Stone's testimony before the wreck commission that the mystery steamer started to steam away by time he, Stone, saw the 2nd rocket. If, however, Stone called down after seeing the first 5 rockets, as Stone said he did, then that steamer was steaming away after the 5th rocket was sent up. In either case, according to Lord, the steamer was reported to be steaming away when Stone first called down to him.

What does that mean? That means the mystery ship had to be steaming away while still showing her red sidelight because Gibson came topside after the 5th rocket went up and saw that sidelight disappear after the 7th rocket was seen. Once again, as I said before, if you believe any of this stuff, then that mystery steamer must have been steaming away across the icefield toward the SW when Stone first reported to Lord. And because her red sidelight was still visible until the 7th rocket was seen, it had to be steaming away while going astern. Furthermore, the bearing to those far off rockets, that according to Stone never went higher then ½ the height of the steamer’s mast light, were somehow following that steamer all the time while she was steaming away. Hmmm. I wonder how can that be?

Was Lord confused about when Stone told him about the steamer steaming away when he testified? That's very possible. But if he was confused then, then that confusion stayed with him for years. In his 1959 affidavit, Lord wrote:

At about 1.15 am, the Second Officer whistled down to say that the other steamer was altering her bearing to the south-west and had fired a white rocket. I asked him whether it was a company’s signal and he replied that he didn’t know. I thereupon instructed him to call her up, find out what ship she was, and send the apprentice, James Gibson, down to report to me. I then lay down again in the chart room, being somewhat relieved in my mind at the news that the other ship was under way and removing herself from her earlier relatively close proximity. For some time I heard the clicking of the Morse key, and after concluding that the Second Officer had succeeded in communicating with the other ship, I fell asleep.

If Lord was confused about what he was told, at least he was consistent about saying that he was told about the steamer steaming off when Stone first called down to him.

My point is that when I read what Capt. Lord had to say at the inquiries I keep reminding myself that here is someone who was put on a hot seat because word got out that those on Californian saw rockets the night Titanic went down and did nothing about it at the time. So when Lord says he told someone something, or was told by someone something, I look to see if his story can be confirmed, and if anything that follows as a result makes any sense.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Now since Paul had brought up the topic about the approach of the steamer near 11 o'clock, and is trying to prove that it could not be Titanic based on what Capt. Lord had to say, let’s take a good look at this.

To repeat what Lord said at the American hearings:

When I came of the bridge, at half past 10, I pointed out to the officer that I thought I saw a light coming along, and it was a most peculiar light, and we had been making mistakes all along with the stars, thinking they were signals. We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm. He said he thought it was a star, and I did not say anything more. I went down below. I was talking with the engineer about keeping the steam ready, and we saw these signals coming along, and I said "There is a steamer passing. Let us go to the wireless and see what the news is." But on our way down I met the operator coming, and I said, "Do you know anything?" He said, "The Titanic." So, then, I gave him instructions to let the Titanic know. I said, "This is not the Titanic; there is no doubt about it."

But did he really say anything to Evans about a steamer coming up from the east?
Let's see what Evans had to say after listening to what Lord said:

Mr. EVANS. I went outside of my room just before that [sending the message to titanic], about five minutes before that, and we were stopped, and I went to the captain and I asked him if there was anything the matter. The captain told me he was going to stop because of the ice, and the captain asked me if I had any boats, and I said the Titanic. He said "Better advise him we are surrounded by ice and stopped." So I went to my cabin, and at 9.05 New York time I called him up. I said "Say, old man, we are stopped and surrounded by ice." He turned around and said "Shut up, shut up, I am busy; I am working Cape Race," and at that I jammed him.

Nothing in his story about being told about a steamer coming by, or being told that this steamer "is not the Titanic” or anything like that.

Now what Evans and Lord said at the American Inquiry was available to those asking questions at the British Inquiry. This is what happened there:

First Lord:

6717. And you saw a steamer’s light. Was it approaching you? - It was approaching me from the eastward.
6718. How did it bear? - I did not get the bearings of it; I was just noticing it casually from the deck.
6719. Where was it? On your quarter? - It was on the starboard side.
6720. What did you see - what light? - I just saw a white light to commence with.
6721. Did you then ask your wireless operator what ships he had? - Yes, I went to his room and I asked him what ships he had.
6722. That means from what ships he had had messages? - What ships he had been in communication with.
6723. What did he say? - “Nothing, only the ‘Titanic.’”
6724. Did you think that the vessel approaching you was the “Titanic”? - No, I remarked at the time that was not the “Titanic.”

Now Evans:

8977. Did you go on deck when you found the ship had stopped? - Yes.
8978. I think you found the Captain and the Chief Engineer discussing the matter? - Yes.
8979. And then did the Captain make a communication to you and ask you to do something? - Well, Sir, he was talking about the ice then; he was talking to the Chief Officer. I asked him if anything was the matter, and if he wanted me. A little after that he came along to my cabin to talk to me.
8980. What did he want to know? - He asked me what ships I had got.
8981. That means, what ships you were in touch with? - In communication with.
8982. What did you say? - I said, “I think the ‘Titanic’ is near us. I have got her.”
8983. Did you say “I think the ‘Titanic’ is near us” or “is nearest”? - Near us.
8984. (The Commissioner.) “Nearer” is it you are saying? - She was “near us.”
8985. (The Solicitor-General.) As far as you know, was there any ship with Marconi apparatus that was nearer you at this time than the “Titanic”? - Not as far as I know. I had not the “Titanic’s” position.
8986. (The Commissioner.) What time was this - about what time? - Five minutes to eleven.
8987. (The Solicitor-General.) Ship’s time? - Yes.
8988. What did the Captain say when you said that? - He said, “You had better advise the ‘Titanic’ we are stopped and surrounded by ice.”
8989. Did you call up the “Titanic”? - Yes.

Once again we find nothing about a steamer approaching them in Evan's testimony, and furthermore, nothing about being told that this approaching ship was not Titanic.

Notice also the slight differences in what was told in America Vs. what was told in Britain. In America Lord says he and the engineer were going to see Evans and met him coming to meet him. Evans says he went to see Lord to find out why they stopped and was asked by Lord about what ships he had. Nothing about seeing an approaching steamer. In Britain Lord says he went to Evan's room to ask what ships he had. Evans says he went to see Lord to ask why they were stopped where he finds Lord talking to C/O about ice. Evans then says Lord came along to his cabin to ask about what ships he had. Again, nothing mentioned about any approaching steamer, or that some approaching steamer not the Titanic.

There is nothing from Evans to corroborate Lord's claim about seeing a vessel approaching before he talked to Evans. We only have Lord's word for it. Furthermore, and more importantly, Evans says nothing about being told that "This is not the Titanic." Lord's story about that makes little sense except if it were an attempt to convince those at the inquiries that he was certain that the mysterious stranger that came from the eastward was not Titanic, and that he did his part to warn Titanic that there was ice ahead.

Now in hope of clarifying a few details, let’s see what Lord wrote in his 1959 affidavit:

At 10.30 p.m. as I was leaving the bridge, I pointed out to the Third Officer what I thought was a light to the eastward which he said he thought was a star. I went down to the saloon deck and sent for the Chief Engineer I notified him that I intended to remain stopped until daylight but he was to keep main steam handy in case we commenced to bump against the ice. I pointed out to him the steamer I had previously seen approaching from the eastward and southward of us and about 10.55 p.m. we went to the wireless room. We met the wireless operator coming out and pointing out the vessel to him I asked him what ships he had. He replied: “Only the Titanic,” I thereupon remarked, judging from what I could see of the approaching vessel, which appeared to be a vessel of no great size and comparable with our own ‘That isn’t the Titanic.” I told him to notify the Titanic that we were stopped and surrounded by ice in the position I had calculated, and he left at once to do so.

Sounds pretty much what he said in 1912, but he follows with:

Later I noticed the green (starboard) light of the approaching vessel, also a few deck lights in addition to the masthead light previously seen.

The significance here is that he says it was LATER that he noticed the green sidelight and “also a few deck lights” after speaking to Evans about sending that message to Titanic. How much later he doesn't say, but it was after seeing Evans, not before.

(By the way Jim, notice that here he claims that the light was “approaching from the eastward and southward of us.” My vote was that it came from about ESE true.)

The bottom line for me is that that Lord’s account about what he saw and said to Evans is not backed by Evans. We only have his word for it, and even then, some of the details are about when he saw certain things such as deck lights are contradictory.

Cheers,

 

[Paul Slish]

Greetings All. I now have some time to get back to the discussion.

I will attempt to answer Sam's questions regarding my posts.

But before that I would like to bring up another point. My late father was a Professor of Management Development - Continuing Education Division at the Pennsylvania State University. His two specialties within Management Development were labor relations and communications. The communications area was in oral and written communications. When you grow up with someone you get to spend a lot of time hearing about their occupation. Over and over he would say communications (both oral and written) is a lot harder than most of us think. He gave examples from exercises he had groups of students engage in during his classes. He also gave many example from companies he taught managers at. It was amazing how things could easily get garbled.

It is unrealistic to expect perfect communications when two people interact orally or in writing. Father used to say "you haven't communicated just because you think you have communicated accurately. It is only when the recipient of the communication can articulate back to the communicator, and both are agreed on the content of the message that effective communication has taken place."

So what's my point? Hopefully it will become clear as I try to answer Sam's questions.

Let's start with Stone.

I understand Sam to be articulating just two possibilities with Stone and the ship he saw supposedly steaming off to the southwest, and the rockets altering their bearing with the ship altering its bearing. Also that Stone stated the ship began to alter its bearing with the second rocket. And by altering her bearing we mean by the compass. An actual change in location.

1. Stone was wrong that the ship steamed off to the SW as the rockets stayed over her as she supposedly altered her bearing. Since we believe these rockets were from the Titanic, and Titanic didn't move, then the rockets could not change their compass bearing. Therefore the ship did not move. Stone is wrong.

2. Since the ship showed her red light until after the 7th rocket was fired according to Gibson, the only way she could be steaming off after the second rocket is if she steamed astern. Now this assumes Gibson was correct in seeing the red light until after the 7th rocket was fired.

Sam thinks it is extremely unlikely that a steamer would go astern for some time, and therefore Stone is wrong again.

So Sam thinks the ship seen by Stone and Gibson did not steam away as it was the Titanic, and the only place the Titanic went was down. The red light disappeared because it went out of their sight due to sinking lower and lower.

Sam, feel to correct me if I misunderstood you.

In an earlier post, I said I believe there is a third possibility.

Stone was wrong as to when the bearing change commenced. But he was correct, as measured by the compass, that the other ship did indeed steam off to the southwest. If she steamed off then she can't be the Titanic.

Now first of all there are two witnesses who testify that Stone did indeed believe the other ship began to steam away from the time of the second rocket onward.

Lord testified it in both the USA and in London. Chief Officer Stewart said Stone told him the other ship began to steam away at the beginning of the rockets. Stone told Stewart this shortly after 4:00 a.m. on April 15 when Stone gave his report of his watch to Stewart. That was before Stone knew anything about the Titanic.

So here again are my reasons for my view on things.

1. Stone saw the first two rockets and was excited, understandably so. He didn't take a compass bearing and just eyeballed it that there was a slight alteration of bearing (Lord's words in London - "6794. And then what was her bearing? - She was altering it slightly towards the S.W."). He rushes over to the speaking tube and reports it. A slight alteration in bearing could be a mistake.

2. Both Stone's and Gibson's April 18th reports and Gibson's testimony in London indicate the steaming away was either toward the end of the rockets (after the 7th), or even after the eighth and last.

3. Stone actually took compass bearings. They are not hard to take. I've done it myself. Gibson confirmed that Stone was taking bearings of her all the time. The compass bearings indicate the other ship did indeed steam off to the southwest.

4. Thus no reverse steaming (other than part of the original turning around as Captain Jim suggested) took place.

I'm placing great weight on a second mate who had been to sea for eight years taking some accurate compass bearings. That doesn't mean that eyeballed bearings in between are always accurate.

Parenthetically, I don't believe all of Gibson's relative bearings (so many points from the bow etc.) are all necessarily accurate. He wrote a report three days after the facts. Much discussion had taken place in those three days. Could he really accurately remember the bearing of the other ship on all the occasions he mentions? I can't say for sure he had some wrong, but I don't have confidence in all of them being dead on. The three flashes he saw later are a point in question. Sam thinks, and I agree with him at this time, that these last three rockets or flashes were from the Carpathia.

Gibson has the first two points before the beam. Three minutes later the second is "right abeam."

The Carpathia could not have moved two points in 3 minutes. Could the Californian really swing 2 points (22.5 degrees) in just 3 minutes? And the swing would be in the opposite direction to what Groves and Stone testified. I believe it was Jim who said, "What were they, in a whirlpool?"

So if I don't have confidence in Gibson's bearings here, why should I have total confidence in the rest of them? Especially since three days went by from the watch in question until the report was written?

In summary, Stone's slight alteration in bearing initially was a mistake. The later compass bearings were accurate indicating the other steamer did indeed steam off to the southwest. This didn't start until after the 7th rocket was fired. Thus the rockets were always in the direction of this steamer.

There is nothing physically impossible in my interpretation. But that is what I think happened.

One final thought on this post. I first read about the Californian incident at least 40 years ago. I did not have knowledge of Peter Padfield's 1965 book at that time. It has been since 1992 and the reappraisal by the British government that I have really studied the Californian incident. I have of course read Padfield's and other books on the subject several times. I have studied the 1912 evidence in great detail.

This is a hobby of mine. I have tried to come up with a comprehensive picture of what took place.

Certainly others are entitled to disagree with me. I am not in the least offended if they do. I have learned much from others on this discussion board.

I have two more posts to do. One about Stone. And one about Lord and Evans. This is to try to address Sam's questions.

There is always tomorrow.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hi Sam!

I think you really must carefully examine what Lord was stating in that written piece in 1959.
The reason I say this is because the year after that, in 1960, as a second mate, I was the principal witness in a Court of Enquiry held in Montreal in the summer of that year. I won't bore you with the details. All I will say is that it was traumatic to say the least (I was very close to the age Stone was).
My point is that although that was possibly one of the more traumatic times in my seafaring career - I could not, for all honesty tell you or quote now what I actually said at the hearing or before it. I don't have the added problem that Lord had regarding people being for or against me. That was 48 years ago!
Perhaps you might think it a coincidence but I'm sure the case is recorded and you can easily check me out. The vessel was the MS Broompark.
So you see coincidences really do take place!

As for what Lord wrote. I note your latching-on to the southerly element of that statement.

At first glance it would certainly seem he was referring to the approaching vessel's angular displacement south of 090T. However, Lord's generation of seamen had a peculiar trait of referring to another ship using bearing and angular distance north south east or west of their own ship. A classic example of this is Moor's reference to a crossing ship.

Notwithstanding that little bit of intelligence; On three occasions, including the one you quoted - Lord referred to the approaching ship being to the 'eastward'. The second time in your quotation above, I think he was describing a vessel bearing 4 points on the starboard bow and in a more southerly latitude.

This discussion is supposed to be about Titanic's distress rockets by the way! However, I'll make one last observation:

The one glaring omission here is Groves contribution. Is it the popular consensus that this person was talking a lot of old cod's wallop?

How was it possible from a ship heading NE True that a single vessel was seen almost simultaneously approaching from two different directions - according to Lord; from the east and to Groves; from S a-half-East (Groves said S-a-half-W). This vessel according to both these gents; At first showed a green and one masthead light and then a red and two masthead lights?
Additionally, it was rapidly changing course between west and north. Groves said it was approaching at about a 45 degree angle!

That's all I have to say at present. I'm developing a general layout of how it might have been that night before midnight. Once I master this CAD programme I'll put it on the site so you can all tear it to shreds.

Cheers,

Jim.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>He didn't take a compass bearing and just eyeballed it that there was a slight alteration of bearing <<

Now just what does "slight alteration of bearing" really mean? A 1/2 point, 1 point, 2 points? If it were not taken by compass then it becomes a subjective estimate, and then how does one tell the difference from a change in relative bearing from a change in compass bearing without some fixed reference? If it were a relative bearing observation, to suggest that the steamer was steaming toward the SW would tend to confirm my belief that the Californian was occasionally swinging in the counter-clockwise directions at times, just like the 2nd rocket of the last three seen near 3.20 AM that was described by Gibson.

By the way, a swing of about 2 points in about 3 minutes (nobody was really watching a clock) is a turning rate of about 1/10 of a degree per second, almost imperceptible to the eye over a short time period.

>>The Carpathia could not have moved two points in 3 minutes.<<

Agree!

>> Could the Californian really swing 2 points (22.5 degrees) in just 3 minutes? <<

Why not? As I pointed about above, it would be almost imperceptible to the eye and such movement would explain why Stone thought the steamer was changing her bearings to the SW early on.

As far as Stone taking accurate bearings from the compass, which you said you believe he did, how do you explain him seeing the rockets from Carpathia at 3.20 being on a bearing of SSW, that's 4 full points to the right of the SSE bearing from Titanic's rockets?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>The one glaring omission here is Groves contribution. <<

Grove's contribution is of limited value in my opinion. I don't think he was a very careful observer and more than a bit sloppy in what he reported to the commission. He said he first noticed a single light about 11:10 but thought it might be a star rising. (Stars rise from the eastward [if I may use that term], so a star rising from the southward, if that was the first direction he noticed the light was in, would be a bit strange to say the least.) He also said he saw two masthead lights. He was the only one. However, that is not something he first made up at the inquiries. He mentioned that to Lord the next day according to what Lord said when the two were discussion what they both saw the previous evening. Seeing a ship coming up from slightly abaft the beam near the time it stopped is not unreasonable. I don't think Groves ever said he saw a green light. I also don't think he took particular notice of how much from abaft the beam it really was. I doubt his 3 1/2 points abaft the beam was close to being that accurate. He also said he noticed the ship had stopped by 1 bell, 11:40 ATS. That is also what he told Stone and confirmed by Stone. Did he mention to Lord when Lord came topside near 11:45 that he thought it was a passenger vessel? He said yes; Lord said no. But Lord did say that he heard that "The third officer, I think, remarked to the second officer" when he was relieved as OOW that that her deck lights seemed to go out. Lord also admitted at first that he might have told Groves that “The only passenger steamer near us is the “Titanic”, but he later said he didn't really recall if he actually said that to him. Groves, of course, said he did.

A lot of what took place between Lord and Groves depends on what and who you want to believe.

 

[Paul Slish]

Hi sam. You asked.

"As far as Stone taking accurate bearings from the compass, which you said you believe he did, how do you explain him seeing the rockets from Carpathia at 3.20 being on a bearing of SSW, that's 4 full points to the right of the SSE bearing from Titanic's rockets?"

Well first Gibson tells him he saw a light or rocket. Stone starts looking also. I doubt he took a compass bearing then.

He sees a flash or rocket then, the second of the three. He estimated the bearing in my opinion.

He wrote his report on April 18, three days later. He writes the two he saw were ABOUT S.S.W. He is going from memory. It could even be a slip and he meant S.S.E.

He also wrote on April 18 he told C.O. Stewart "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., we were heading about W.N.W."

Notice Stone points out to Stewart "where he thought" he saw these faint lights at 3.20 [a.m.]. That indicates to me no compass bearing was taken. Stewart looks and see a ship's light. He and Stone then both look through binoculars and see two masthead lights.

What is the direction? ABOUT SOUTH. And Stewart agreed in his testimony that it was ABOUT SOUTH.

These are estimates. South is only two points west of S.S.E. That is not that far for eyeballing it.

Also remember that at this time nobody knew where the Titanic sank. So if Stone just took estimates he could be off. On this 4:00 a.m. ship he was pretty accurate because Stewart agreed with him.

It is also interesting to examine what Stone said in London about the 3 later flashes.

"8008. What did you do? - At about 3.20, just before half-past three, as near as I can approximate, Gibson reported to me he had seen a white light in the sky to the southward of us, just about on the port beam. We were heading about west at the time. I crossed over to the port wing of the bridge and watched its direction with my binoculars. Shortly after, I saw a white light in the sky right dead on the beam."

OK. Here Stone says the Californian is heading about West. The second rocket is right on the port beam which is south. That is only two points from S.S.E. Also notice Stone said they were heading ABOUT west. So right on the beam would be ABOUT South.

My opinion is that on these estimated bearings you can't expect them to be too accurate. Two points is in the ballpark. I think it is enough that they saw these later flashes or rockets to the southward. Stone also said the 4:00 a.m. ship was not on the same bearing as the ship he thought steamed away. It could only be the same ship if it had "come back." So Stone puts the 4:00 a.m. ship to the east of the ship he said steamed away to the southwest bearing southwest.

That makes sense because south is east of southwest. In the general picture everything makes sense.

My thought is that if Stone just took a few compass bearings that demonstrate the ship steamed off to the southwest and finally bore southwest then that is what happened. A compass bearing is not hard to take.

Gibson confirmed Stone was taking compass bearings.

One other point about the first rocket of this last group of three.

Gibson in his April 18 report had the first as "two points before the beam." Stone says in London "Gibson reported to me he had seen a white light in the sky to the southward of us, just about on the port beam."

So which is it? Two points before the beam or just about on the port beam? Do you see my point? Between estimates and memory not being perfect in any of us you can't expect these estimated bearings to be too accurate. And neither Stone nor Gibson knew anything about the Titanic when they observed all this. So should we really expect perfect memory on estimated bearings?

Even if the other ship was the Titanic, they didn't know it at the time. They knew something was unusual, but as Captain Jim said Stone was uncertain at the time. Later that morning you hear the Titanic has gone down. Now you are straining your mind trying to remember exactly what you saw.

And we all know there was nothing in the scrap log! That's a little attempt at humor.


My thought is compass bearings (if remembered correctly) will be accurate. We all know it doesn't matter which way the ship is heading if you are using the compass for a compass bearing.

All these estimated bearings by Stone and Gibson I wouldn't place too much confidence in. They are only in the ball park and memory can be wrong also.

As far as Stone's initial "slight alteration of bearing" as reported to Lord, I agree with you. What is that supposed to mean? Altering her bearing slightly, if just eyeballed before calling down on the tube, could be no altering of the bearing at all. The other ship (Titanic or one in between) is stationary. If one in between, it was stationary until she shut in her red light and steamed away to the southwest. As I've explained in previous posts that is what I think happened.

Well I'll have to respond to your other questions another day.

 

[Paul Slish]

Captain Jim. Could you please answer a question based upon your many years of seagoing experience? If a ship swung two points on the compass in 3 (three) minutes is that something a sailor would feel and notice? Would you notice it in the stars you were seeing also shifting in your view?

Sam has postulated Gibson and Stone may not have noticed it. I have no experience to make a judgment one way or the other.

What is your thought on this? Thanks,Paul

 

[Jim Currie]

I'll answer a few bits and pieces briefly.

As far as noticing a ship swinging. You are both right, depending on the situation. But then again your information about this particular situation is second hand.

As Sam says; you need a reference point or two compass bearings at intervals. The external influences causing a vessel to swing are also important contributors to the speed of swing. However, in this case, the observer(s) did have two points of reference - the bow and 90 degrees to it. As I have pointed out before; seamen are constantly using these reference points and are therefore very adept at using them as references when determining direction. Contrary to what you say Sam; an experienced seaman will almost instinctively notice quite small changes in relative bearing using this 'rule of thumb' - particularly when a vessel is stopped or at anchor. However it is not possible to determine what caused this change of relative bearing or the speed at which it is changing. To determine this, several compass bearings together with relative times are necessary.
In the case of vessel to vessel; the more accurate use of compass bearings is usually reserved for determining relative directions of speed and movement - as was the reason for Lord's orders to his bridge officers when they were stopped.

Paul; a seaman would probably notice a vessel swinging if the swing was constant. In the case of Californian, he would see the stars apparent motion as they were shut-out briefly by intervening superstructures and or masts and rigging. On a ship which is stopped and in complete darkness with little or no light except that from other ships or stars - ones eyes are immediately drawn to any light that seems to move.

As for Groves Sam:

Groves was to be the original 2/O. He had exactly the same qualifications and experience as Stone.
The 'rising star' conversation: didn't that take place between Lord and Groves just after 2230 when the former suggested it might be a ship but the latter contradicted him in favour of a rising star? (Incidentally, a heavenly body can only rise in the east if the observer is due west of it - ie, like Californian - on the same latitude).

You have illustrated exactly what I'm getting at and what everyone else seems to have ignored.

Groves made his contribution. He mentioned a vessel which does not 'fit'. I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that he really meant half -a point or so, abaft the beam when he said (I think,on two occasions, perhaps I'm wrong) three-and-a- half points abaft the beam. His evidence was not examined in the overall context of what was being suggested.

Lord had a conversation with the C/E just before 2300 - say 2250 when he invited him to come and see a vessel coming along. I don't care what anyone else understands this to mean but I am absolutely sure it does not mean 'let's go a look at a ship ten or more miles away'.
Unless these guys had binoculars for eyes, the ship referred to was close enough to be of more than passing interest. The one man who could have proved that was the C/E. Perhaps they did have binocular eyes because Lord claims he saw that vessel's green light with the naked eye! The saying 'passing ships in the night' is extremely apt in this case.

While on the subject of lights: If Californian could see just one masthead light of Titanic - why could'nt any of the three men in Titanic see Californian's lights just before the collision but heaven knows how many saw them just after it?
Especially when - according to the BOT, Californian was less than ten miles away? Why was that question never cleared-up?

And so the saga rolls-on!

Cheers,

Jim.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>an experienced seaman will almost instinctively notice quite small changes in relative bearing using this 'rule of thumb' - particularly when a vessel is stopped or at anchor.<<

No problem with this at all. Changes to relative bearings should be easily noticed. Gibson's report to Lord cited several relative bearings. But Stone saying something is changing its bearing to the SW means quite a different thing, and requires a reference external to the ship, such as the background stars, or a bearing taken of the object by compass, or a relative bearing taken of the object and then noting your own ship's heading by compass at that particular time.

>>My opinion is that on these estimated bearings you can't expect them to be too accurate. Two points is in the ballpark.<<

If Stone was taking bearings by compass "all the time" then I would suspect his "about SSW" would be within 1 point of that particular compass bearing for the lights seen at 3.20, not 4 points off. Of course if it was an estimate based on an observation of his ship's heading taken at some other time, then it is easy to see where he could be so far off with his ship swinging all the time.

>>Between estimates and memory not being perfect in any of us you can't expect these estimated bearings to be too accurate. <<

Which bearings of Stone's were estimated, and which were accurate, if any? I personally give more weight to what was reported in their letters to Lord 3 days after the event then to testimony given weeks later before the commission. That includes Gibson's detailed description of the 6th rocket which saw through binoculars from the moment it was fired.

 

[Paul Slish]

The testimony does not explicitly state which bearings Stone took were estimates and which were taken by the compass.

But Stone explicitly testified he took compass bearings to conclude the ship he saw steamed away to the southwest.

Gibson confirmed this in his testimony.

"7741. Could you see whether she was steaming away? - No. The Second Officer was taking bearings of her all the time."

Chief Officer Stewart also testified that Stone told him shortly after 4:00 a.m on April 15 that the nearby ship had steamed away to the southwest. This was before either had heard of the sinking of the Titanic. It seems certain to me that Stone believed it. We differ on whether he was correct.

All Stone needed was one compass bearing showing a change in bearing of the nearby ship of one point or more to demonstrate she steamed off. And Gibson said there were a lot more than one bearing taken.

The Titanic was stationary Stone's entire watch. She could not have changed compass bearing by one point let alone 6.

Obviously we differ on our conclusions.

I still have three posts to finalize my thoughts.

1. Analysis of Stone's testimony as to what he reported about rockets to Captain Lord.

2. An analysis of Lord's and Evans testimony as to what took place when Lord asked him to send a wireless to warn Titanic. This of course is a response to Sam's analysis of my previous analysis of Lord's testimony!

3. An analysis of Gibson's evidence, especially regarding his written statement about the flash of a rocket apparently on deck of the nearby steamer and the faint streak skyward. I agree wholeheartedly with Sam that this written statement to the Captain needs to be carefully considered by any researcher who concludes the Californian officers and apprentice were not seeing the Titanic.