What missing boat was Stanley Lord looking for


Dec 12, 1999
1,002
4
0
If you go to the following site, it has all of the "official" wireless traffic relating to the Titanic disaster:

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Cauldron/5807/Titanic/message.html


In one message, Captain Lord wires to the Carpathia, as follows: "Searched vicinity of disaster untill (sic) noon yesterday Saw very little wreckage no bodies no sign of missing boat, regards, Lord"

The question is: what "missing" boat was Lord looking for?

I think it must have been Collapsible A. At the British inquiry, Captain Rostron stated the following:

25477. My is impression is that there is one collapsible still unaccounted for in that? - - Oh yes, I beg your pardon, one bottom up; one that capsized. That was in the wreckage. That was twenty.

25483. The two collapsibles? Yes; and there is one Berthon boat which we saw amongst the wreckage bottom up. It was reported to me that there was still another Berthon boat still aboard the ship.

With regard to the "still aboard" boat, it appears that Rostron had been talking to Titanic's officers, such as Lightoller, who didn't know that Collapsible A had floated off, on the other side. Thus, at least initially, it was thought that this lifeboat was missing. Perhaps this is the boat that Lord was looking for.

CARPATHIA SAW THE BODIES?

But more importantly, however, is the question we've addressed in several conversations on this site, i.e., did Carpathia or Californian see the bodies? The fact that Rostron admits, rather hesitatingly, that he saw the overturned Collapsible B amongst the wreckage of the Titanic, suggests that Carpathia did see the bodies, after all.

We know that Collapsible B was near the bodies, and wreckage, it seems. It was seen there by Bremen and McKay-Bennett.

Is is reasonable to suggest that Collapisble B was among the wreckage later, on April 20, 1912 (when Bremen went by), or April 21, 1912 (when McKay-Bennett arrived) but not on the morning of April 15, 1912 - - five days earlier, before the wreckage really had an opportunity to disperse?

As such, it seems reasonable to deduce that the Carpathia saw the bodies, if it saw Collapsible B, as Captain Rostron says, "amongst the wreckage."

So, at long last, perhaps we finally have the answer to our dilemma. Collapsible B is the key to unlocking it. The bodies were there all along - - alongside Collapsible B.
 
Sep 20, 2000
1,072
4
0
Hi, Jan:

Oh, B-ROTHER! Obviously Phil Hind is by no means alone in suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous plagiarism! That web page whose address you posted is a blatant rip-off! All of its material was lifted directly -- almost intact -- from two legitimate sources, neither of which is cited in any way.

One, the Titanic Radio Page (http://www2.dynamite.com.au/rmstitanic/) provides the basis for that site's chronological table of disaster messages, and is excerpted right down to the author's parenthetical comments. Introductory remarks and explanatory notes from that web page were also transposed more or less intact.

The other source, from which that enormous number of cables was directly transcribed, is Booth and Coughlin's "Titanic: Signals of Disaster" (White Star Press), which I recently acquired. I'm sure the authors will just love seeing their book "in print" online (with no permissions or citations whatsoever). Again, it's not just the raw messages that are reproduced, but accompanying descriptive comments straight from the pages of the book.

I've advised The Titanic Radio Page of this by email, and asked them to relay Booth and Coughlin if they are able. (*That* web page does acknowledge the book as one of its sources.) The fur's gonna fly on this one!

Regards,
John Feeney
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
79
0
The fact that Rostron admits, rather hesitatingly, that he saw the overturned Collapsible B amongst the wreckage of the Titanic, suggests that Carpathia did see the bodies, after all.

"Rather hesitatingly?" Where do you get that from?

Is is reasonable to suggest that Collapisble B was among the wreckage later, on April 20, 1912 (when Bremen went by), or April 21, 1912 (when McKay-Bennett arrived) but not on the morning of April 15, 1912?

Yes, it is. Things move around, sometimes without apparent rhyme or reason, in the water.

Why didn't you quote this Question:

<FONT COLOR="0000FF">25485. (The Attorney-General.) I do not know if you have the figures available, but can you tell us how many persons were taken on board the "Carpathia" from these various boats? - It was reported to me that 705 was the number of survivors, and we took three dead bodies from one of the boats, and also, not counting the 705, there was another man, a passenger we took up from the boat, who died two or three hours after we got him on board.

Sailors do not leave the sea's victims in the water if they have the ability to recover them. You would have to have a stronger argument than what you presented here before you would have any chance of convincing me that Rostron turned his back on Titanic victims floating in the water.

Parks
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,242
529
278
Parks is correct about modern naval sailors and most merchant mariners picking up both the quick and the dead.

In 1912, however, many of the old superstitions of the sea were still strong. Among the Celtic peoples there was a belief that you dare not even rescue someone in peril on the sea. The idea was that if you took something that the sea wanted, you would anger it and the sea would then come for you. There were cases of fisherlads not even picking up men who fell overboard from their own vessels. Horace Beck discusses this in his book "Folklore And The Sea."

For a similar reason, most deepwater sailors would never eat saltwater fish. "Never eat something from the sea," they would say, "lest something in the sea will eat thee."

Not that I'm suggesting these superstitions played much part in the aftermath of Titanic. Looking at the photos of the "rescue" ships, none look as if they provided any method of hauling bodies out of the water. It would have been necessary to use lifeboats at some risk to their crews. And, hauling bodies would have gained no cargo fees. I would imagine that a lot of good captains used Admiral Nelson's "blind eye" on the cold dawn of April 15, 1912.

-- David G. Brown
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
79
0
OK, then I would have to ask this, then:

If there were bodies floating in the water within sight of Carpathia, Mount Temple, etc. how come there are no passenger accounts to that effect? Goodness knows that passengers (landlubbers, some of them, and immune to the superstitions of the sea) on those ships claimed any number of other sightings. Why would Rostron be the only source for information?

I think this entire subject is a gruesome over-analysation of minutiae in the testimony. Personal opinion.

Parks
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
79
0
OK, then I would have to ask this, then:

If there were bodies floating in the water within sight of Carpathia, Mount Temple, etc. how come there are no passenger accounts to that effect? Goodness knows that passengers (landlubbers, some of them, and immune to the superstitions of the sea) on those ships claimed any number of other sightings. Why would Rostron be the only source for information?

I think this entire subject is a gruesome over-analysation of minutiae in the testimony. Personal opinion.

Parks
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
79
0
Daggone it, my message posted twice again. :-(

Dave,

Carpathia realised no cargo fees for hauling back those Titanic lifeboats that were salvageable, but she did nonetheless. And I also see a difference between Celtic fishing folk and officers of the Royal Navy Reserve, even when talking about the 1912 timeframe.

Parks
 
Dec 12, 1999
1,002
4
0
Parks,
You argument cuts both ways. The passengers didn't see Collapsible B, but Rostron did. We don't know what the passengers saw, because no one really asked them. This may in part be because the passengers were placed inside at a memorial service. John Collins saw Carpathia picking up bodies, Major Peuchen saw one body. My own view is that the collapsible was seen from some distance away, perhaps with eyeglasses (although Lord testified that he saw Carpathia by the wreckage). I think, too, that - - as you state - - the subject is gruesome. People weren't questioned about it much, and probably didn't want to talk about it. Many of Bremen's crew and passengers didn't talk about what they saw - - because it was so horrifying. I think Rostron does appear to hesitate somewhat in identifying Collapsible B. Personally, I don't think its minutae, at least not any more than the other stuff on this board. I'm interested in the cover up surrounding the disaster, i.e., damage control, etc. This is one aspect of that. Further, I don't blame anyone for not picking up the bodies (either Californian or Carpathia). Rostron certainly had his hands full. But having made the decision not to recover the bodies, they all tried to hush it up, like they did with other aspects of the disaster. This creates some mystery.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
79
0
Jan,

I was not implying that a cover-up by Rostron was minutiae...what I was trying to convey is that I believe you're picking at minutiae to look for controversy. I don't read Rostron's verbal stumble in Question 25477 as hesitation (and all that implies), but rather as momentary confusion on the tally of the boats. Rostron describes in Question 25485 the picking up of 3 bodies from the boats and Peuchen says much the same thing to Senator Smith (be careful here...Peuchen talks of both the dead bodies he saw in Collapsible A set adrift by Lowe and the 3 bodies he was told about in the boats alongside Carpathia).

You're now placing me in the position of having to defend why passengers didn't see what didn't happen. Sorry, can't do it. You say they were inside at a memorial service, leaving the crew alone on the upper decks to carry out their conspriracy. You might as well include the Mount Temple, where a passenger saw Titanic's rockets close by, and Californian where crew members saw the same...no one saw bodies floating in the water, except for the one Rostron (the grand conspirator!) reported. The image of the mother and child (replicated in Cameron's movie) seen by the woman on the Bremen was horrifying, but obviously not so horrifying that she didn't report it. Talk about having an argument cut both ways.

You say that mystery has been created because "they all" hushed up not recovering the bodies. Before you establish the mystery, you had better prove the basis for this that you state so confidently as fact. I don't believe you have done this.

And, how many people constitute "they?" Who is this "they" who covered up "other aspects of the disaster?"

Why am I passionate about this? Because in your quest for conspiracy, you besmirch a good man's motives and play games with the dead...all without any proof, just speculation. I'm not speaking for anybody else but myself...maybe there is an appreciative audience for this kind of gruesome speculation...but I just wanted to state my personal revulsion at the very serious insinuation you are making against Captain Rostron. I wish the man were here so that you can accuse him of such a outrage to his face. And I would like to hear his answer.

Parks
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
60
308
Parks -

One little correction:

I'm not speaking for anybody else but myself...

In this case, my friend, you are speaking for me, at least, even if unintentionally :) Beautifully expressed.

I'm sorry, Jan - I appreciate the thought and energy you've put into this, but I still just don't find it viable. As I said before, I'm willing to believe that Rostron didn't look to hard for the bodies they knew were out there, but not that he lied about any that were there.

All the best,

Inger
 
Dec 12, 1999
1,002
4
0
So, let's take another look at this.

Incidently, it was Rostron, not Peuchen, who saw the one body. After re-reading Rostron's American testimony, this is starting to come together, a little.

Rostron: "By the time we got the first boat's people it was breaking day, and then I could see the remaining boats all around within an area of 4 miles."

This statement is interesting because Rostron's reference to "remaining boats" he saw in the 4 mile area must include Collapsible B, which may have been near the bodies. Shortly thereafter, Californian appears. Rostron communicates to Captain Lord that "Think one boat still unaccounted for." (this is, I think, Collapsible A).

So, Rostron probably saw the Collapsible from a distance. I'm going to postulate that he saw the bodies, too. Then, he sent the passengers inside and set about, as follows:

Rostron: "While they were holding the service, I was on the bridge, of course, and I maneuvered around the scene of the wreckage. We saw nothing except one body . . . He was only about 100 yards from the ship. We could see him quite distinctly, and saw that he was absolutely dead . . . I did not take him aboard. For one reason, the Titanic's passengers then were knocking about the deck and i did not want to cause any unnecessary excitement or any more hysteria among them, so I steamed past trying to get them not to see it."

Okay, does anyone believe that last part? He saw one body and didn't pick it up because of the possibility of hysteria breaking out? It's more likely that, in the distance by Collapsible B, he saw a whole lot of bodies, or "fields of bodies," as Bremen did. That sight probably would have created hysteria, as it did on Bremen, five days later.

Further, he says here that he was "trying to get (the passengers) not to see it."

Interestingly, Rostron succeeded. Peuchen didn't even see the one body.

So there you have it, that's why the passengers didn't see anything - - the bodies were in the distance, and Captain Rostron was making evasive manuevers to avoid anyone seeing a body (even one as close as 100 yards).

Now, regarding passengers on the Bremen, very few passengers, and no crew, spoke of what they saw - - Mrs. Stunke and Captain Wilhelm were among the few who did.

Regarding Captain Moore, he says outright that he was too far away to see anything, and there was an ice pack between him and Carpathia, as follows:

Moore: "I saw none (bodies) whatever, sir.

Smith: Does that indicate Titanic may have sunk in a different position?

Moore: I don't think it proves anything as far as I'm concerned because I must have been at least 5 miles to the westward of where Titanic sank. This great field of ice was 5 miles at least between us and the Carpathia.

By "they," I'm referring to Ismay, Sanderson, Burlingham, Franklin, Marconi, Morgan, and in general the WSL management. "They" were very powerful men, and I think that Rostron would not have been so foolish as to do anything that could have offended them, even though he worked for a different steamship line. In my view, Rostron assisted "them" in hushing up facts surrounding this disaster.

Regarding, "You besmirch a good man's motives and play games with the dead . . . with out any proof" - - c'mon, get real, I'm no worse than anyone else on this board. Further, there is proof.

I don't have the proverbial "smoking gun," but there are a lot more facts to back up my theory, and anyone is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from circumstances. In a court of law, before a jury, reasonable inferences may be drawn. There are many other facts, which I have mentioned in previous conversations.

Now, Bill De Sena has a theory, too. He's a former police officer, and knows about what happens with bodies. He thinks that the life jackets became waterlogged, and the bodies sank to about 20 feet for a while, then came back up after about 24 hours. The problem I have with this is that there were bodies supported by lifejackets that were identified. Rostron saw one. Joughlin was in a life jacket in the water for nearly 4 hours. So, I don't know that the lifevest were water logged such that the bodies would have sank.

So, thanks for the feedback, I respect your views and I'm sorry if anyone has taken offense, but I think this theory has merit.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
79
0
OK, Jan. I won't stand in the way of your search for conspiracy. You're right...you're not the only one who likes to probe the dark side of just about anyone who was involved in the tragedy, and I didn't mean to single you out. However, like you, I am a "Show me," and I don't believe you've shown me valid proof of a conspriracy aboard Carpathia.

Parks
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,242
529
278
Allow me a yarn which may prove germane to this thread. A few years ago while I was managing a yacht race, the driver of our mark set boat decided to take a dip. He jumped overboard only to discover that his boat was drifting downwind faster than he could swim. I was forced to abandon the race (officially cancel it) and use the finish line committee boat to rescue the young lad.

Here's my point -- wind affects boats more than it does swimmers, whether they be quick or dead. A wind sprang up overnight. I would expect that the boats were quite a distance from the bodies by daylight.

And, I have had the occasion to pull nine people out of the water over the last half century. Human beings are not visible for any great distance. In one case, sea conditions caused me to loose sight of two victims who were less than 30 feet from my boat.

-- David G. Brown
 
Dec 12, 1999
1,002
4
0
My experience, too, is that it's difficult to see small people out on a big lake, or on the ocean.

But I'm not so sure that, in this particular instance, there was a lot of difficulty seeing the bodies. Here's an excerpt from Logan Marshall's book, on the matter of Bremen's sighting of the bodies. According to the passengers, the dots of white lifejackets "could be seen all the way to the iceberg."

BREMEN SIGHTED MORE THAN A HUNDRED BODIES

When the German liner Bremen reached New York the account of its having sighted bodies of the Titanic victims was obtained.

From the bridge, officers of the ship saw more than a hun- dred bodies floating on the sea, a boat upside down, together with a number of small pieces of wood, steamer chairs and other wreckage. As the cable ship Mackay-Bennett was in sight, and having word that her mission was to look for bodies, no attempt was made by the Bremen's crew to pick up the corpses.

In the vicinity was seen an iceberg which answered the description of the one the Titanic struck. Smaller bergs were sighted the same day, but at some distance from where the Titanic sank.

The officers of the Bremen did not care to talk about the tragic spectacle, but among the passengers several were found who gave accounts of the dismal panorama through which their ship steamed.

Mrs. Johanna Stunke, a first-cabin passenger, described the scene from the liner's rail.

"It was between 4 and 5 o'clock, Saturday, April 20th," she said, "when our ship sighted an iceberg off the bow to the starboard. As we drew nearer, and could make out small dots floating around in the sea, a feeling of awe and sadness crept over everyone on the ship.

"We passed within a hundred feet of the southernmost drift of the wreckage, and looking down over the rail we distinctly saw a number of bodies so clearly that we could make out what they were wearing and whether they were men or women.

"We saw one woman in her night dress, with a baby clasped closely to her breast. Several women passengers screamed and left the rail in a fainting condition. There was another woman, fully dressed, with her arms tight around the body of a shaggy dog.

"The bodies of three men in a group, all clinging to one steamship chair, floated near by, and just beyond them were a dozen bodies of men, all of them encased in life-preservers, clinging together as though in a last desperate struggle for life. We couldn't see, but imagined that under them was some bit of wreckage to which they all clung when the ship went down, and which didn't have buoyancy enough to support them.

"Those were the only bodies we passed near enough to distinguish, but we could see the white life-preservers of many more dotting the sea, all the way to the iceberg. The officers told us that was probably the berg hit by the Titanic, and that the bodies and ice had drifted along together."

Mrs. Stunke said a number of the passengers demanded that the Bremen stop and pick up the bodies, but the officers assured them that they had just received a wireless message saying the cable ship Mackay-Bennett was only two hours away from the spot, and was coming for that express purpose.

Other passengers corroborated Mrs. Stunke.


Just as an interesting aside, when I went back and looked at Major Peuchen's Senate testimony, I noticed that he described the Titanic's wreckage as "two islands." Isn't this a fairly prominent clue to the investigators, at that time, that Titanic had split in half? I wonder if anyone picked up on that. Apparently not, because my understanding is that until 1985 most people thought that the Titanic hadn't split.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Isn't this a fairly prominant clue to the investigators, at the time, that Titanic had split in half?<<

Not necesserily, Jan. When a ship sinks, anything on deck which is not secured or which which breaks loose will be floating about the surface, including deck chairs, lifeboats which were not successfully launched, as well as anything inside which would be ejected through openings in the structure (Like the skylight and deckhouse above the Grand Staircase) cargo, rope...you name it. you would be stunned at just how much flotsem couyld be left behind even when a ship sinks intact. Check some photos of the Andrea Doria going down and you'll see.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Dec 12, 1999
1,002
4
0
Michael,

I don't disagree that a lot of wreckage appearing on the surface doesn't indicate anything about the break up of the ship, but in this instance, Peuchen mentions "two islands," with stuff strewn between them. It seems to me that this would clue someone in that there are two independent sources for the wreckage, and from that, one could deduce that the ship had split in half . . . maybe not, I don't know. I haven't seen the photos of Andrea Doria, were there several islands of wreckage in that?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
Initially, the wreckage from the Andrea Doria was located in the immidiate area where the ship went down. Where it would have gone after that would depend on local currents, the seastate and weather conditions.

For myself, the number of witness statements to the effect that the ship had broken up should have at least have indicated to the investigators that it was a possibility, but they had some of their own ideas back then. It wouldn't be the first time in history that evidence had been read selectively or dismissed. You must see that sort of thing in courtrooms all the time.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Similar threads

Similar threads