Titanic's Distress Rockets

[Paul Slish]

Hi Captain Jim,

Neither the QM on duty on the Californian or the lookout (on the middle watch 12 to 4 a.m) were called as witnesses at either inquiry. The QM is mentioned in a Boston newspaper article.

Boston American, April 25, 1912, p. 1 in an article about Gill and the Californian has the following quote.

"Captain Lord is alleged to have forced the second officer, Mr. Stone, to sign a statement in which he denied having seen any signals of distress. He is also charged with having persuaded the quartermaster on duty between midnight and 4 a.m. Monday, April 15, to deny having seen signals."

This seems rather far fetched. In an interview later reported by another newspaper, Lord stoutly denied these accusations.

The QM may have been in the wheelhouse and couldn't see all that much?

Captain Lord testified in Washington, DC

"Senator FLETCHER. Did you keep lookout men on duty after your engines were stopped?

Mr. LORD. A man on the lookout; only one, the man in the crow's nest.

Senator SMITH. On that Sunday night, the 14th of April, one man was relieved and the other was kept on duty?

Mr. LORD. We discontinued the one on the forecastle head. We just kept the one on the crow's nest."

He says nothing about cancelling the lookout on the crow's nest for the midnight watch.

It is a shame this lookout was not called, or at least interviewed by someone afterwards.

 

[Jim Currie]

I agree with you Paul.

It's not a shame, but a downright disgrace given the newspaper reported allegations. The QM and the lookout should have been closely questioned by both Enquiries - for nothing else other than to prove or disprove such damning allegations.
Both Enquiries pre-judged the situation based on newspaper reports. Indeed, such reports are still quoted as 'evidence'.
It was then, and still is, normal practice to interview all personnel on the watch during which an incident took place. I have contributed to many such investigations when working on behalf of Underwriters.
Both Enquiries were convened to determine the cause of the accident and to gather information that might help to prevent it happening again. The main purpose was not to apportion blame. Such blame would have been the subject of further serious proceedings. There were no such further proceedings. That should have been an end to it. It probably would have been but for the addition of the un-asked for answer: part B of question 24 of the Mersey report.

It has been said that Lord 'hanged' himself with his answers in the papers to these allegations. How was he supposed to answer them? Hindsight is a fine thing!

Ah well!

Cheers!

Jim.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>It has been said that Lord 'hanged' himself with his answers in the papers to these allegations. How was he supposed to answer them?<<

"No comment" probably would have been a good start.

I was genuinely surprised at just how slipshod the Senate investigation was into this affair. Everybody should have been questioned, at the very least, the people who were on watch at the time should have been questioned along with anybody who had any potential or asserted involvement after the fact.

They weren't.

 

[Jim Currie]

Michael,

The Senate people had plenty of excuses for some of their omissions but the UK BOT crown were a disgrace. They had loads of time, were primed from the senate Enquiry and also had a big team of very well qualified, experienced seafarers on hand to forensically examine everything. Heavens! they even had time to plot 'gaps' in the answers and compile suitable questions to fill-in those gaps. To me, Mersey and his gang were the real'criminals' in this sad, sorry affair. I do not for one minute think there was a 'stupid' person among that bunch - just a conniving, manipulating twisted collection of control freaks with a very political agenda.

Cheers!

Jim.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>I do not for one minute think there was a 'stupid' person among that bunch - just a conniving, manipulating twisted collection of control freaks with a very political agenda.<<

Bull...ahhhhh..."business as usual" in other words. Lightoller didn't call the whole affair a whitewash for nothing. He knew what he was talking about on a lot of levels!

 

[DonJ]

Jason, the socket signals carried by the Titanic were white.

Sorry to disagree with you but according to Quartermaster Hitchens evidence at the British Enquiry, Question 1198: Can you tell us what colour rockets? Hitchens answer makes clear that they fired nearly 3 boxes of 12 = nearly 36 with some red, some blue some green and some white. If we therefore assume that 32 rockets were fired that means 8 red, 8 blue, 8 green and 8 white.
The sound of the rockets would have been heard at up to 5 miles distance while the red, blue and green colours would have been visible at up to about 8 miles but californian only saw 8 white rockets. Therefore there were more than 8 miles but, at that distance the socket signals would have seened to be like to much smaller signal rockets.
In fact, we now know that Californian was about 26 miles away and would have been unable to give assistance even if she had sailed on seeing the first rocket.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>In fact, we now know that Californian was about 26 miles away and would have been unable to give assistance even if she had sailed on seeing the first rocket.<<

Uhhhh...no....we don't "know" that the Californian was 26 miles away. This particular controversey has been raging for a long time and it's a long way from being a settled deal.

You may well be correct about the socket signals however since some which were recovered from the debris field tends to back up what you said and what Hichens claimed.

 

[Scott Mills]

>>In fact, we now know that Californian was about 26 miles away and would have been unable to give assistance even if she had sailed on seeing the first rocket.<<

Uhhhh...no....we don't "know" that the Californian was 26 miles away. This particular controversey has been raging for a long time and it's a long way from being a settled deal.

You may well be correct about the socket signals however since some which were recovered from the debris field tends to back up what you said and what Hichens claimed.

Michael,

The discovery of colored rockets on the wreck of Titanic does support not only Hitchen's claim that colored rockets were fired, but also the recollection of some passengers, including Col. Gracie.

Regarding the Californian: I find it very interesting, after the discovery of said colored rockets on the wreck, that many of the claims by the crew of the Mount Temple that said ship was close enough to witness the foundering of Titanic involved the crew of Mount Temple watching a very colorful pyrotechnic display coming from the deck of Titanic in the form of multiple colors of rockets. Incidentally, it was also reported (before either inquiry) in addition to these colored rockets, green lights were seen coming from the oceans surface between "the sinking Titanic" and Mount Temple.

It is because of this, chiefly, and because of a number of other factors--the Mount temple's reported positions and speed make no sense, the claim about suicidal schooner that came straight at mount temple in an ice field, etc--that it seems so odd that many on this form (I'm not accusing you, I'm speaking generally now) are so utterly dismissive of the possibility that Mount Temple was Titanic's "mystery" ship.

I also find it frustrating, and odd, that captain Moore never broadcasted Mount Temple's position that night, never spoke to Titanic again as a matter of fact, even though all the other ships in contact with Titanic did broadcast their positions, and if Moore's story was completely accurate he would have every reason to believe that he was the closest ship to Titanic's CQD position. Had Mount Temple done so it would have gone a long way towards confirming or negating the stories that leaked from the passengers and crew of said vessel, and could thus help us now judge more absolutely the claim that Mount Temple was the "mystery ship."

But, I digress from the original purpose of this thread, AND I find that I am ranting--which isn't fair to anyone.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>It is because of this, chiefly, and because of a number of other factors--the Mount temple's reported positions and speed make no sense, the claim about suicidal schooner that came straight at mount temple in an ice field, etc--that it seems so odd that many on this form (I'm not accusing you, I'm speaking generally now) are so utterly dismissive of the possibility that Mount Temple was Titanic's "mystery" ship.<<

The reason that most people are dismissive of the possibility of the Mount Temple being any sort of mystery ship is because there is NO possibility that she is. She was too far away at the time she recieved the distress signal and didn't even arrive on the western edge of the icefield until well after the Titanic sank.

This is not debatable in spite of numerous attempts to make it so. This is Fact.

A couple of sources to check out

Dave Gittens website at Titanic Navigation and South Australian Cruising

This is quite easily one of the most even handed of all the sites dealing with the Californian fiasco, one which avoids a lot of the invective.

George Behe's website at Titanic

George goes into a lot of details about his correspondance with Leslie Harrison, and the problems with his stand.

When it becomes available again (The site has exceeded it's bandwidth allowance for the month) go to Dave Billnitzers website at EarthLink® - Page Temporarily Unavailable as he goes into excruciating detail about the altarnative theories and he's done a truely remarkable job of showing why the so-called evidence against the Mount Temple isn't evidence at all.

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

I'm not going to go into the Mount Temple issue, because others have already dealt with that, and the idea that Mount Temple was in sight of Titanic is a red herring, and has been debunked thoroughly, but there is some other information that has been posted that needs to be corrected.

Don wrote:
"If we therefore assume that 32 rockets were fired that means 8 red, 8 blue, 8 green and 8 white."

Where did the number 32 come from? The watch on duty on the Californian only saw 8 white rockets, but it is possible that they missed some given that there were some trips below, they weren't watching it every second, etc. Similarly, the witnesses on Titanic weren't counting the number of rockets, but nobody estimated numbers anywhere near 32. I have had conversations with some people involved in the Cameron special on Nat Geo, and their theory on why some of the rockets fired came from the box of detonators in question, is because 11 are missing from the box, and none are visible on the seafloor nearby. They don't forward a number as high as 32 having been fired, and there isn't any credible evidence that supports that many being fired. In any event, the whole Californian debate comes down to whether or not they saw Titanic's rockets, which nobody debates. Any number of theorized ships in between doesn't change that basic fact, even with Captain Lord having become an unfortunate scapegoat after the fact.

Also:
"In fact, we now know that Californian was about 26 miles away"

I think too many assumptions are being made in this conversation. If that was an established fact, then this whole topic wouldn't be one which generates so much controversy that most people can't approach it without getting emotional about it. There has been a good deal of misinformation in this whole debate over the years.

Kind regards,
Tad

 

[Scott Mills]

Tad,

Senan's book is, frankly, very compelling for someone who entered the "mystery ship" dialogue with no preconceived notions. I don't want a recap here in this thread, nor do I want to enter what appears to be a strangely acrimonious debate; however, you say that the Mount Temple as the "mystery ship" has been "debunked thouroughly." This is a pretty absolute statement, and I am wondering if you could point me in the direction of the book or published articles that have done the debunking.

Cheers.

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

Hi Scott,
You have the correct mindset if you are looking into this subject with no preconceived notions. Regarding some sources to look at, many are the same that Michael recommended. I would first of all recommend that you read "Report Into the Loss of S.S. Titanic, A Centennial Reappraisal," which has an entire chapter dedicated to this subject, and pretty thoroughly proves Mount Temple was not in sight of Titanic. You won't find very many researchers who suggest there is a credible case for Mount Temple being in sight of the Titanic. The navigational evidence and evidence from other ships on the scene eliminates that assertion. Here is a link with info about this book: Report Into The Loss Of The SS TITANIC: A Centennial Reappraisal.

Also, as Michael recommended, I would definitely check out Dave Billnitzer's website, which points out some of the large issues with the alleged eyewitnesses saying Titanic's rockets were seen by Mount Temple, particularly Quitzrau, who is an extremely questionable witness for a number of reasons, as you will see. As was pointed out, this site is currently not up and running, as the site is over it's monthly traffic allotment, but should be back up early next month: EarthLink® - Page Temporarily Unavailable

Sam Halpern's articles on his website touch on some of these things if you search through and read some of them that are listed there: Titanicology

George Behe's series of articles on the Californian, and correspondence with Leslie Harrison touch on the Mount Temple a bit, and are helpful: Titanic

I would also recommend reading Paul Lee's book on the subject which discusses Mount Temple, and the actual testimony from Captain Moore of the Mount Temple in the inquiry, as well as the affidavit of Quitzrau, who alleged Mount Temple saw Titanic. The testimony is available online at the Titanic Inquiry Site.

Hope this helps,
Tad

 

[Scott Mills]

Hi Scott,
You have the correct mindset if you are looking into this subject with no preconceived notions. Regarding some sources to look at, many are the same that Michael recommended. I would first of all recommend that you read "Report Into the Loss of S.S. Titanic, A Centennial Reappraisal," which has an entire chapter dedicated to this subject, and pretty thoroughly proves Mount Temple was not in sight of Titanic. You won't find very many researchers who suggest there is a credible case for Mount Temple being in sight of the Titanic. The navigational evidence and evidence from other ships on the scene eliminates that assertion. Here is a link with info about this book: Report Into The Loss Of The SS TITANIC: A Centennial Reappraisal.

I have this book on order as we speak! It arrives on the 24th and I am pretty excited about it. My wife on the other hand has told me more than once ion the past 10 years that she doesn't want to hear anymore about Titanic!

Also, as Michael recommended, I would definitely check out Dave Billnitzer's website, which points out some of the large issues with the alleged eyewitnesses saying Titanic's rockets were seen by Mount Temple, particularly Quitzrau, who is an extremely questionable witness for a number of reasons, as you will see. As was pointed out, this site is currently not up and running, as the site is over it's monthly traffic allotment, but should be back up early next month: EarthLink® - Page Temporarily Unavailable

Tad, that page is unavailable at present. Having just read Senan's book, unless I am confusing Quitzaru with someone else, no claim by him was ever made about actually seeing rockets or Titanic. Rather he claims to have been told by members of the crew what was going on during the night. I will aldosay that part of what makes his testimony compelling are: his sworn deposition, his willingness to testify at the Senate, his correct description of the wireless traffic (better incidentally than Moore's), and ultimately his correct description (though he never claims to have seen them himself) of Titanic's use of colored rockets. All before either inquiry.

I am interested to know what makes him a questionable witness.

Also, again having just read Senan's book, I found myself reading Moore's testimony. I found his ddescreption of the suicidal schooner in the night--an ice filled night no less-- very strange, and wondered how this was not challenged at the time.

Additionally, it seems to me that the description of what was done that night given Mount Temples reported start and end position seem impossible. She would have to have done 13 knots without stopping--a speed she wad incapable of, and in anycase Moore negates by telling us he stopped in addition to running his engineers at full reverse.

In any case his own navigation plots must have been wrong even if he is inoccent.

Really I find it frustrating that he never broadcast his position or distance too Titanic that night--the only ship not in contact to do so--as that would have put to rest forever any question of Mount Temple as the "mystery ship."

But look I find myself very close to defending the position that Mount Temple was the mystery ship, and that is not what I intend. I am looking forward to learning more about this "question" and reserve judment leaving Mount Temple for the moment in the category of possible candidates.

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

Hi Scott, here is another good resource showing all the ships known to have been in the North Atlantic when Titanic sank:

http://www.paullee.com/titanic/northatlanticships.html

Also, Dave Gittins' e-book goes into the Mount Temple issue. Here is an old post of his regarding Quitzrau:

The Mount Temple

Hello All, Recently I have been reading in many books, that the MT Temple may have actually been able to get to the Titanic in time, I find this quite interesting and I would like to know more if anyone could tell me some more then just basic information then I would love to hear it (Basic...

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

The website for his e-book is now Titanic Navigation and South Australian Cruising, and I recommend that work as well.

Take care,
Tad