Tonight at BBC1

M

Mila

Guest
I've just got email from BBC1.

Apologies for the short notice notification, but we’ve just found out that, to tie in with the current wintry theme, The One Show are showing our item ‘The Key Which Sank the Titanic’ (which you very kindly helped us with), on this evening’s programme.

So, please tune it from 7pm on BBC1 this evening.
.

They sent it to me because I allowed them to use some of my footage. I've already watched this program (it is very short, just a few minutes). Tim Maltin appears in it with his mirage theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harland Duzen

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,536
578
123
Thank you for informing us, I watch it tonight. What footage did you provide and what of?

It should be noted though that the Key didn't sink the Titanic, it was the key that locked the telephone box in the crow's-nest and since this was clearly used, it certain that the key didn't sink her. The binoculars instead were kept in Murdoch's or Wilde's room in a special box.

Unfortunately the story is too much like click-bait for the newspapers to keep repeating and if they just did a bit of research, they know it's not the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuel Halpern
M

Mila

Guest
I provided the footage of a Fata Morgana type mirage of the sea surface. They used one of my still images and a few seconds of one of my videos. It is when Maltin talks about the mirage theory. They assured me they gave me credit for it. I am in USA, so I cannot watch it anyway. On the copy they emailed me a few weeks ago there are no credits there. They told me it was because they could not attach a large file to an email.
This story started a long time ago, when I got an email from a friend who asked me where is a good place to film a superior mirages because National Geographic is filming a movie about the Titanic. They were not able to film a superior mirage.They ended up filming so called desert mirage (inferior mirage) in that helicopter scene (if you've watched the documentary). For a superior mirage they used my still, and another person video. So it appears that BBC1 just continues what National Geographic has started.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harland Duzen
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Of course if there is no light to be refracted then what some show to be a false horizon caused by a temperature inversion cannot be seen on a dark, moonless night.
Witnesses said the starlight made the night appear almost as bright as daylight. I believe there would have been plenty of illumination to light up the horizon and turn it into a glowing haze.


I've just got email from BBC1.
They sent it to me because I allowed them to use some of my footage. I've already watched this program (it is very short, just a few minutes). Tim Maltin appears in it with his mirage theory.

Here are screenshots from the programme today. They discussed the binoculars and how the temperature caused the light to bend. It was fascinating to watch.


doc1a.png


doc2a.png


doc4.png




.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harland Duzen
M

Mila

Guest
Of course if there is no light to be refracted then what some show to be a false horizon caused by a temperature inversion cannot be seen on a dark, moonless night.
Hi Sam, the navigationa lights of the ships as well as deck lights could definetely get miraged. Besides I did discuss the subject with the best specialist on mirages Dr. Andy Young, and he believes that starlight could provide enough light scattering to make a mirage-assosiated haze to be noticeable. After all an Ice-blink is seen at night. A problem is not with night, a problem is with a temperature inversion, and I do not see one in the situation with the Titanic.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,379
751
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Witnesses said the starlight made the night appear almost as bright as daylight.
Well, I can understand the metaphors. But I can assure you that it is not even close. I've been out where there was a clear, moonless night and far away from any artificial lighting, except for the Cape May light which was some 12 miles off. The night sky is a wonderful sight, and very inspiring, especially with the milky way forming a broad arc in the sky. But the sea still appeared as a black slate.

I do recall Lightoller writing about working to get boat B off the roof of the officer's quarters and recognizing Hemming, who was assisting him, only by his voice because it was too dark to recognize him otherwise.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,379
751
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Hi Mila,
I did discuss the subject with the best specialist on mirages Dr. Andy Young, and he believes that starlight could provide enough light scattering to make a mirage-assosiated haze to be noticeable.
Should ask him if he has ever actually seen that. There is a big difference in what someone believes may be possible, and what actually is possible.
I fully agree with you that ship's lights would get miraged if the conditions were right. No problem with that. But starlight scattering on the sea? Then why does the sea out to the horizon not show any of this starlight scattering? Why would the sea beyond the horizon scatter enough starlight to appear as a haze on the horizon by refraction yet you can't see the surface of the sea or even nearby icebergs by scattered starlight that is within the distance to the horizon?
Ice blink is the reflection light of ice that is reflected off of clouds and may extend up to 15° from the horizon. It is due to the intense reflection of light from the ice surface, and is most marked in a clear, fine atmosphere when the sky is uniformly covered with cloud.
 
M

Mila

Guest
Well, I can understand the metaphors. But I can assure you that it is not even close. I've been out where there was a clear, moonless night and far away from any artificial lighting, except for the Cape May light which was some 12 miles off. The night sky is a wonderful sight, and very inspiring, especially with the milky way forming a broad arc in the sky. But the sea still appeared as a black slate.

I do recall Lightoller writing about working to get boat B off the roof of the officer's quarters and recognizing Hemming, who was assisting him, only by his voice because it was too dark to recognize him otherwise.
I agree. Once I watched meteor shower in one of the darkest places in US ( The Death Valley NP). The sky was amazing. We saw Milky Way, and the Belt of Venus, but it was dark, very dark.
 
M

Mila

Guest
Oh, I agree. What's your thoughts about looming?
Looming also requires a temperature inversion. Besides looming (as all supper refraction phenomena) depends on distances. For example, it could be seen, when the objects are 14 miles apart, but disappear completely when they are 10 miles apart. It could be seen better, when an observer's height is lower, and disappear when an observer steps up, and sometimes it is other way around. Mirages are crazy things. One scientist from Holland run rays simulations for the situation with the Titanic. His preconditions were the ships (Californian and the Titanic) were located 10 miles apart. His simulation showed the Titanic towering in front of the looming sea surface, but he was not able to account for low-lying rockets. Towering is similar to looming but alters the shape of the objects, stretching them vertically like in this video I filmed of a cargo ship I filmed a few years ago. See her cargo containers? Looming does not change the shapes, simply brings objects up.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The huge ice field probably reflected the starlight above and gave it a ghostly illumination on the surface of the ice which could be seen by the lookouts who were higher up than any other ship and would be able to look down at it from a unique perspective not seen by the other ship's much closer to the waterline. The Parisian passed the area earlier that night. Wireless operator Sutherland went off duty. He said - "Why, on a clear night you can see a berg away off by its glitter. They glisten like an illuminated glass palace." Perhaps the huge ice field (miles long and wide) had absorbed the light from the stars above which distorted the horizon ahead of them to appear as a haze.

The Titanic was facing the Californian, so Gibson would have been looking primarily at her bow side light and masthead light.

Gibson said:

"Her sidelights seemed to be higher out of the water.....Her red sidelight......It seemed to be higher out of the water than what it was before."

Q - The sidelights seemed to be higher out of the water?
A - Yes.
Q - You thought that her red sidelight did not stay at the same level, but got higher?
A - Yes.
Q - Did you look to see whether these after-lights seemed higher up out of the water, or lower in the water?
A - I noticed them all at the same time.
Q - What, the red light and the others too?
A - Yes.
Q - And do you mean that the white light seemed higher out of the water as well as the red light?
A - Yes.

He was asked what he meant by his statement that all of her lights (including her side light) rose higher.

A - That I cannot say......They were in the same position, but they seemed to look different."

Q - I know; you have said that two or three times, and you have been asked what the difference was, and I should have thought you could have told us what the difference was. What was it?
A - I cannot say, my Lord.

Q - Were they shining as brightly as they were before?
A - The same glare.
Q - Then it had nothing to do with the brightness of the lights?
A - No.
Q - But though the lights were of the same brightness, it struck you that they looked different somehow?
A - Yes.
Q - Cannot you tell us what the difference was?
A - No.


There is only one plausible reason for her red port light and masthead light to rise higher up, coupled with the fact that he saw the glare of her deck lights rise up with them, and her rockets appeared to burst close to her masthead light and no sounds were coming from her despite appearing to be only 4 miles away, and this leads me to believe the lights on the horizon were being levitated and the rockets burst above the affected layer of air and this created the illusion they were bursting close to the masthead light.

Glad to know if anyone has another explanation for the levitation of her bow lights. Is it possible that the image was affected by an inferior mirage and her bow lights rose higher up as the temperature changed? The Californian was also affected because survivors said they only saw one masthead light, but when Mr. Beesley left the ship he said - "Almost immediately after leaving the Titanic we saw what we all said was a ship's lights down on the horizon on the Titanic's port side: two lights, one above the other, and plainly not one of our boats; we even rowed in that direction for some time, but the lights drew away and disappeared below the horizon."

e.g. Both ships levitated by the refraction. Gibsons see's the Titanic's port light and masthead light rise higher up. Beesley see's the Californian's masthead light doubled "one above the other."


.
refraction1a.png


refraction2.png



They rowed towards her all night and made no advance. A refracted image would levitate above the horizon and create the impression they were not getting any closer to her. As the morning broke and the temperatures changed, the lights would return to normal and disappear..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 22, 2003
5,379
751
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Aaron, Gibson never said the rockets burst close to the masthead light. That stuff came from Stone and is not backed up by Gibson. As far as Beesley seeing two masthead lights, Californian had two masthead lights. No mirage needed.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,985
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
I will probably be shot down in flames but it has to be said. This garbage about missing keys, binoculars and magic mirages is a load of old rubbish.

First of all, as Georges has confirmed and anyone with any knowledge of ship handling will confirm, Titanic could never have turned toward the Californian. The vessel on Titanic's port bow was not the Californian. The evidence of those who saw that vessel also confirms it.

It follows that the efforts to use abnormal refraction to account for those on Titanic seeing Californian at such a great distance are totally a waste of vivid imagination.

For anyone on Titanic to have seen the Californian at all, they would have needed binoculars like this:
Titanic glasses.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Georges G.
Dec 23, 2017
1,126
637
123
Not many people know it but i have never before seen testosterone when the California's officers had to use the cranes to lift and use the binoculars, you heard it here first ;)
 

Georges G.

Member
Feb 26, 2017
510
69
38
61
I will probably be shot down in flames but it has to be said. This garbage about missing keys, binoculars and magic mirages is a load of old rubbish.

First of all, as Georges has confirmed and anyone with any knowledge of ship handling will confirm, Titanic could never have turned toward the Californian. The vessel on Titanic's port bow was not the Californian. The evidence of those who saw that vessel also confirms it.

It follows that the efforts to use abnormal refraction to account for those on Titanic seeing Californian at such a great distance are totally a waste of vivid imagination.

For anyone on Titanic to have seen the Californian at all, they would have needed binoculars like this:
View attachment 40169
:D ...

Jim, I am very disappointed that you don’t believe in Fata Quae Semper that would easily bring Titanic 12 miles closer to Californian. I’ve seen that along with Mermaids, Mary Celeste, Giant Squids, Flying Saucers, Ocean Flatulences … just to name a few. I really tough that you had more sea experience than that. As for the binoculars, even at that size, I am positive that the majority would say that it wouldn’t help to sight the berg.

However I have the regret to tell that you could be disappointed if you read back «Stanley Lord guilty as charge» post #1948…
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,985
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
I suggest you have another look at that post, Georges and consider what happened to the pivot point and hence the stern at the moment of contact.
Then, bet your pay packet;).
In fact, what would happen to the stern if the starboard shoulder made contact with a knuckle as she moved ahead along the quay?
 

Georges G.

Member
Feb 26, 2017
510
69
38
61
Jim, I stand by with what I wrote in post #1948. So please don’t use my name in a way to confirm your own preexisting biased beliefs or hypotheses.

I’ve already enlighten at length that Mate Murdoch made everything possible to limit the damage. That he was not foolish enough to keep the rudder Hard-Left, if he ever gave that counter natural wheel order. «Going with what Hichens mentioned aboard Carpathia the engine orders (stop) & closing of the WTDs were given after the "Hard-a-port" (which was given during the crash) order». Therefore, to avoid unjustifiable and extensive iceberg pressure all along the starboard side, the rudder must have been ordered Hard-Right. Thence, Titanic initiated a turning momentum to Starboard (clockwise), when the berg was located in the area of BR No.4 where the pressure was relieved, until steadied by the Master close by her previous westerly course, possibly on a North-West heading but most doubtfully on a South of West one.

Here are some more explanations of the peripatetic pivoting point that could help you to understand the principles;

  • Don’t waste your time with explanations; people only hear what they want to hear.
  • For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
  • To him who has had the experience no explanation is necessary, to him who has not, none is possible.
  • If you can't understand it without an explanation, you can't understand it with an explanation.
  • Do not ask for an explanation if you do not intend to believe it.

As for; «In fact, what would happen to the stern if the starboard shoulder made contact with a knuckle as she moved ahead along the quay?» ... I can’t wait for your usual preexisting beliefs and hypotheses to elucidate the matter.

Have a good day Jim! :)
 
Last edited: