When Did Titanic Try For Help


Mar 22, 2003
6,087
1,403
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
This latest paper by Senan Molony, "When Did Titanic Try For Help?" was submitted as a rebuttal to my paper "Rockets, Lifeboats, and Time Changes" because the latter dealt with correlating observations seen on Californian with events that took place on Titanic. This most recent contribution of his contains nothing really new, and is mostly redundant with his paper of March 2008 called "12.45AM - A Time To Go!". It is clear from the tone of his current paper, written in the scornful and contemptuous manner that only he can, that his aim was to discredit the information contained in my paper. Yet, despite Phil Hind telling me back in February that he was becoming tired of papers dealing with Californian and Mystery ships, Phil decided to post Senan's paper of critique within a month after putting my paper up. Now I am being told that this relentless to-and-fro debate should be taken to the message board. Yet apparently Senan was not told that when he sent in his highly opinionated paper right after mine. Why?

The issue here for me is one of fairness. I was told that I cannot do what Senan has done and post a paper of critique addressing the issues that Senan raised in his paper. I was told to take it to the message board instead. Could this have something to do with the fact that 2/3 of all nine research papers submitted since July of 2009 came from Molony? I have drafted a 24 page detailed response addressing the items raised in Senan's paper and more. Yet, if it were up to Phil Hind, you will not see it here on ET any time soon because he is tired of it all. So in light of an apparent double standard being applied here, I will no longer be submitting research papers or other contributions to ET. I will be making this and future papers available to you, the readers, elsewhere.

Meanwhile, I look forward to debating Mr. Molony at the TIS convention in Boston one week from now.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,087
1,403
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Here is the link to the article I promised. It is called: "Does Anyone Really Know What Time It Was?". In this article I show that Senan Molony's arguments advocating the 1 hr 33 min time difference between Titanic time and NY time defies the way time was kept at sea, and has with it some astonishing implications if it were true. It also addresses a number of issues that he raised in his paper concerning a 2 hr 2 min time difference.

I apologize to the reader for it being 24 pages long with 46 footnotes of reference. But sometimes, as some famous captain was said to have remarked in 1912 under a different context, "That's the way of it at this kind of a time."

On a related note, Senan had published an article in TIS's Voyage 71 called "Recalculating a Claimed Titanic Time Difference." It is essentially the same paper that was posted here on ET but re-titled. In it he specifically alleged that the reason for concluding a 2 hr 2 min time difference in my "Rockets, Lifeboats, and Time Changes" article was that I "intended to bring events into line with what Californian, on the Boston track, witnessed in relation to a nearby tramp steamer, which could not have been Titanic."

It is quite clear that we work in very different ways. Some people start with a conclusion and then try to find things that will support their view, many times ignoring evidence or events that suggest otherwise. I like to start by analyzing the available evidence and then see where that leads to. In some cases you may find both supporting evidence and contradictory evidence. The job then is to also address the contradictory evidence to find out why or how. You cannot just simply dismiss it.

The one overwhelming fact is that Titanic's rockets were seen from the bridge of Californian during the middle watch that night. Even Senan will not deny that. He asserted that my intent was to bring events on the two ships into line. It is clear that his intent is to separate events on the two ships as much as possible. But the rockets don't lie.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,087
1,403
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
>>what is the interest in separating events as much as possible<<

The interest in some people in separating events that are really connected, or to connect events that are really separate, is to create doubt and confusion. It starts by forming a conclusion and then looking for ways to prove you are right and ignoring anything that may prove you wrong.
 
Oct 19, 2007
51
2
88
I appreciate the merits of both you and Senan Molony’s articles. I can also understand your need for a rebuttal to his most recent article. And I will definitely read your articles off-site. However, I do hope something can be worked out here on ET. I understand that the principles of fairness are involved, but this shall certainly be a poorer site without your contributions. I do hope you will reconsider. Besides, I’ve actually enjoyed the articles about this subject. Sometimes a good debate is the only way to get closer to the truth. It makes the researchers dig a little deeper in order to confirm or deny a particular point, if only for each one’s own peace of mind.
Sincerely,
A.C
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
15
161
Dublin
Here's the difference between my preference of a ship's time of 1h33 ahead of New York, and Sam Halpern's strident creation of this thread to advance his time of 2h2 instead.

Support for 1h33 -

* Carpathia message to Olympic on the afternoon of the disaster (repeated).
* Testimony of Titanic officer Boxhall
* Testimony of Titanic officer Pitman
* Testimony of Titanic officer Lightoller

Support for 2h2 -

Opinion of Halpern.

This is what Sam writes in the first post on this thread, of an article by me - "written in the scornful and contemptuous manner that only he can."

Which sounds rather scornful and contemptuous to me, but then I am not a moderator.

But I guess it is hard to have it pointed out that the only time difference testified to by Titanic witnesses in 1912 is 1h33, and not "whatever you're having yourself."

And he seemed such an ordinary sort of fellow when we met in Boston at the Titanic International Society convention. That debate did not go his way, mind you...
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,242
529
278
Whoa! Stop the argument. Everybody is "right."

My reckoning puts the time difference of the accident Titanic/New York at 1:38. This is reckoned in "crew time" set back 24 minutes to accommodate the on-duty Starboard Watch serving its half of the extra time that night prior to the crew's change of watch.

As we know, due to the ship's westward progress Sunday, April 14 was to be 24 hrs and 47 minutes in length. Those extra 47 minutes were to be split between the two crew watches. The accident took place 20 minutes prior to change of watch, which means the Starboard Watch must already have worked its extra 24 minutes. (You can't subtract 24 minutes from 20 minutes because there is no such thing in this universe as negative time.)

I agree with Sam that Titanic's April 14th ship's time had been set to 2 hours and 2 minutes ahead of New York. But, it had been necessary at some point prior to the accident to reset the crew clocks to accommodate the Starboard Watch serving its extra 24 minutes. This means that the 11:40 o'clock time quoted for the accident was 1 hour 38 minutes ahead of New York in my reckoning.

Due to the nature of things, I give a leeway of 10% of an hour -- 6 minutes -- either way in terms of reckoning time. Sam's happens to hit my computations on the nose. But, Senan's falls within the 10% "fudge factor." (Note: the "fudge" could be in Senan's numbers, my numbers, or Sam's -- but it makes not a whit o' difference to the argument.)

Thus, I concur with both sides of this argument, sort of.

The real argument should be, "What was the official ship's time of the accident?" In my view, it works out this way:

2404 hrs Apr 14 ship's time = 11:40 O'clock Crew
11:40 o'clock Crew = 0302 hrs GMT
0302 hrs GMT = 2404 hrs Apr 14 Ship's Time

0302 GMT Apr 15 - 5 hrs = 10:02 p.m. New York

-- David G. Brown
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,689
15
161
Dublin
But here's a thing - the surviving wireless operator (Bride) said Phillips said he had finished transmitting the mundane traffic ten minutes before the accident.

That's 11.30pm ship's time.

The invented 2h2 time difference then clashes completely when glossed against the wireless logs of other ships in the vicinity, which naturally were keeping New York time.

So that time difference is definitely wrong. Demonstrably, proven, wrong.

If you sit at home and dream up your own time difference, you are liable to be surprised by what a series of PVs would say in the Bodleian library in Oxford, particularly if you haven't bothered to look at them as that would mean crossing the Atlantic, whereas you are quite comfortable staying in your armchair, while asserting your infallibility.

There are other points of proof on this too. I hold them in reserve.

But we have a 2h2 declaration that defies all the Titanic testimony (which is to 1h33) and which contradicts a number of other ships' wireless logs based on what Bride carefully testified.

The asserter will not face facts. It is a case if the evidence-denier instead having to be right at all costs.

Me, I just see what Titanic officers said and the Carpathia reported. They agree, perhaps unsurprisingly. But these people at least were there.

And here's the funny thing - what they testified does NOT conflict with the wireless logs of other ships as to the times of Titanic transmissions.

Hmmmm.... I wonder why that would be?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,786
970
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I have almost finished an article which I hope, will clear this question and two others up for good. Particularly if all the parties involved'hold the phone'as my old Bostonian Boss used to say and stop fishing for the herring (red ones that is). . Give me a couple of days!

Jim
 

Similar threads

Similar threads