What steamship company had yellowpainted funnells


Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 23, 2000
397
4
263
Captain Lord claimed in his BOT inquiry testimony that there was a ship with a single "yellow funnell" to the south of the Californian at dawn on April 15th.
In case this isn't what I think it could be (a red herring, Lord somehow mistook the color of the Carpathia's smokestack for yellow, or both), I ask: just what steamship company had yellow-painted funnell's on their ships?

Richard K.
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
12
313
Hi, Richard!

Mt. Temple had a buff funnel. It's curious, though, that Lord couldn't make up his mind where the 'yellow-funnelled' ship was located; he told the Senate inquiry that it lay southwest of the Californian (approx. where the Mt. Temple was located), but his privately-prepared affidavit said that it lay to the south-southeast (i.e. on the same side of the icefield as the Californian -- and the Carpathia.)

With Captain Lord, you pays your money and you takes your choice. :)

All my best,

George
 
Jun 4, 2000
1,286
6
313
Hello Richard,

Yellow(ish) funnels - do you mean all possible lines or just possible 'suspects' at the scene?

If just at the scene, the Canadian Pacific Mount Temple had a buff funnel.

If all lines, sorry, you'll have to wait for someone else to type out the list for you. But the lines include: Norddeutscher Lloyd, Canadian Pacific, Royal Mail, Aberdeen Commonwealth, Elder Dempster... you get the idea
wink.gif


Cheers,

F
 
Sep 12, 2000
1,513
6
313
Dear George,

Just a point I'd like to make here regarding your commentary on Lord's testimony. And please remember that I am not any kind of expert regarding Captain Lord by any means. Maybe you have other examples. But I wouldn't be too hasty to pass judgment on Lord as not being consistent based on verbal versus written testimony.

I know what I am going to state here is going to throw some things a skew for many, but it is the truth. I have made verbal statements as to what has happened in a case and have actually written up my own comments only to have it "condensed" by some "official" into what they conceive as "proper format" and the result is their really getting the facts wrong.

I did not change, my testimony did not change, but the way what I had written in my statement was twisted and then entered into the case (which I was only privy to later when it was too late to change it) was totally wrong and in fact hurtful to some who were not even associated with the case.

I as an individual had no power to change what some clod who was in a hurry typed into some silly case of a hundred he was entering that day. So in defense of Captain Lord, I would take his sworn verbal testimony rather than any written prepared statement that was later entered into the case. It may have been altered to fit the format and thus interpreted not transcribed word for word.

Just a thought. Hope you are well sir.
Maureen.
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
12
313
Hi, Maureen!

Thanks very much for your comments re: Lord's varying statements about the true location of the yellow-funnelled ship. You've made a valid point that is worth considering. However, Captain Lord's 'personal' affidavit was never submitted as evidence at the inquiries -- he composed it for his own use and had plenty of time to make it accurate. To the best of our knowledge his testimony at the Senate inquiry was likewise recorded verbatim, so IMO the impasse between Lord's two differing locations of the yellow-funnelled ship can only be laid at Lord's own door.

Hope you'll have a great day, Maureen. :)

All my best,

George
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 13, 1999
581
14
263
Dear Richard,
As already mentioned by George and Fiona, the yellow funnel steamer was most likely the Mount Temple. Canadian-Pacific steamers had buff colored funnels, and Lord's testimony places the ship right where the Mount Temple is known to have been located that morning. As George already pointed out, Lord contradicts himself in his affidavit (on this and a few other things), and places the ship on the opposite side of the ice field with the Californian and the Carpathia.

Maureen wrote:
"But I wouldn't be too hasty to pass judgment on Lord as not being consistent based on verbal versus written testimony."

Maureen, thank you for your post. This is certainly something we should consider. However, while some of Lord's contradictions between his testimony and his affidavit could be contributed to the scenario you described,this does not dispell all the inconsistencies between the two, and certainly does not help explain why Lord's comments contradict those of his own officers and crewmembers.

While we were are on the topic of Captain Lord, I must comment on a comment from another thread, regarding Captain Rostron's view of Captain Lord. In that thread, Senan wrote the following:

"Thirdly Rostron corresponded sympathetically with Lord in 1912. He just wasn't "turned" by his officers."

I suppose you are right Senan. That is probably why Captain Rostron referred to Lord as "that silly man who wouldn't use his wireless." I have never seen it put any clearer.

I have never understood why people get so bent out of shape and verbally abusive in debates about the Californian. All of us can debate endlessly about mystery ships, inconsistencies in the testimony, who is right and who is wrong, but the one thing that no one can say, at least with any degree of credibility, is that Captain Lord should have done exactly what he did that night, and not made any attempt to learn more about the situation. In his own testimony, Lord admits that the rockets that his officers reported to him could have been signals of distress. We can debate endlessly, but when all is said and done, does anyone seriously feel that Lord took the proper course of action that night? All he had to do was wake his wireless operator and we would not even be having these discussions right now.

Did Lord cause the Titanic to sink? Certainly not. Could he have saved anyone if he acted differently? Nobody knows, but his inaction was most definitely a mistake no matter how you look at it, and I feel that "Lordites" and "Anti-Lordites" alike can agree on this point. Well, I have had enough of this debate and am ending my participation in any further debates here regarding the Californian, so that way I can keep from getting insulted and verbally abused because my viewpoint doesn't agree with someone else's. I hope that you all have a nice day.
Best regards,
Tad Fitch
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
69
398
Well, I have had enough of this debate and am ending my participation in any further debates here regarding the Californian, so that way I can keep from getting insulted and verbally abused because my viewpoint doesn't agree with someone else's. I hope that you all have a nice day.

Or at least a better day then Phil has!

I've had enough of it from both sides - enough of the insults, enough of the self-righteousness, enough of the certainty and snideness and abusiveness. The outright digs and attacks, and the more subtle taunts and goading. No 'side' came out of this with any sort of glory, or even any sort of bloody dignity.

My sympathies to Phil, who had to make a hard decision. As far as I'm concerned, everyone here has lost becuase of this - every one of us.

If I see anyone patting themselves on the back over their role in this debacle I'll cheerfully bop them one.

Inger Sheil
 
Jun 4, 2000
1,286
6
313
Sigh.

Ditto, Inger, ditto.

Those of us who get involved in heated discussions, even arguments, like this to one degree or another are demonstrating our passion, interest and commitment to an unfortunate extreme. The sledging, overt and covert, must stop if there is to be any considered debate.

In the meantime, Inger, I believe you're right. We all lose - again.

So no, the day does not go well. I hope it improves... for Phil in particular.

Cheers - not,

Fiona
 

Tracy Smith

Member
Nov 5, 2000
1,646
11
313
South Carolina USA
Fiona,
I'm still chuckling over your comment about Lord having "the Titanic tied to his tail like a tin can for the rest of his life". That was priceless. :)

And, Maureen, thanks for your comments.
 
Dec 12, 1999
997
5
313
Well, in my opinion, the topic should be banned, not any of the people. I have always thought that the Californian story is the dullest, most contrived issue facing buffs these days. But they argue on and on about it. And the subject brings out the extremes in everyone. Without any doubt the endless discussions about it exhibit the worst instances of neuroses on this message board. So, when it comes to continuing the Californian debate, I think that this isn't a free speech issue any more, it's a matter of mental health. I say further debate on the Californian issue be banned, once and for all. Alternatively, a second "cage" type of message board could be created for Californian addicts, and let them go at it to their hearts content in that forum - - just like the wrestlers do.
 

Mike Herbold

Member
Dec 13, 1999
1,007
8
313
Joe:
I'm embarrassed that they named the d--- thing after our state. Why couldn't they call it the Texan, or name it after some other similar god forsaken place.
Mike
(lower periscope, dive, dive)
 
Oct 23, 2000
397
4
263
Ban discussions about the Californian? That would be going to extremes, wouldn't it, Joe?
I think all we need to do is stay cool, keep a grip on our emotions, and not get all bent out of shape over an 88-year-old mystery to the point of attacking others during our discussions about it.
Simple as that.

Richard K.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Asawkward as it is, the matter of the Californian is and always will be a part of the Titanic story. Much as anyone may wish it, it'll never go away, and neither will the ambiguity surrounding it.

However, I agree with Inger and Richard. Getting all worked up over something that happened going on 89 years ago isn't very useful. It won't undo whatever happened.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Nov 5, 2000
245
0
261
66
Hello, about yellow funnels,

I found three companies using yellow funnels:

1. Norddeutscher Lloyd, all the way yellow
2. Hamburg-Amerika-Linie, all the way yellow
3. White Star Line, yellow, with black brim at the top

found this in
Arnold Kludas, Das Blaue Band des Nordatlantiks
Koehler, Hamburg 1999


all my best

Markus
 
Dec 12, 1999
997
5
313
I'm curious, does anyone know how far away the Mount Temple was when Captain Lord saw it? My understanding, from Captain Moore's testimony, is that the ship was on the other side of an ice pack, and very far away, from Californian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads