Why didn't the Titanic's lookouts see the Californian?

[Paul Wilkinson]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your reply and the benefit of your experience. Your point about haze or fog makes a lot of sense - I guess it's a matter of contrast between the lights of the ship and the background. I suspect there could have been soom looming that night, as the still conditions would have produced fairly stable layers of air with different humidity and temperature. This is similar to the classic mirage effect in the desert. It would have affected the viewing from both ships in the same way though.

Cheers

Paul

 

[Noel F. Jones]

"Or that the parties involved decided for some reason to hide the fact that at the time, they could see each other just fine. Either way, I'm not going to make any assumptions."

Precisely Michael. You just made one.

Noel

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Precisely Michael. You just made one.<<

Nope...I didn't. What I did was offer another possibility. Speculative, but a possibility nonetheless. It may be accurate, or it may not be, but I can't just dismiss it because I might find it unappealing on some level.

 

[David G. Brown]

In my opinion Noel has distorted the evidence to say that, "the only equitable conclusion would be that at the material time neither vessel was in sight of the other." The evidence supports that by the definition of the Rules of the Road both vessels were "in sight," but one did not choose to perceive the other. The true situation taken from sworn testimony is exactly the opposite situation to Noel's conclusion.

There is sworn testimony from Californian that another ship performing the evolutions of a sinking Titanic was visible that night.

The evidence from Titanic is that another ship was finally observed only when the sinking liner's bow turned toward that other vessel. This fits nicely into the normal operation of a ship as well as the "seeing conditions" (influenced by a deck lights) from a passenger liner where the bow is kept dark just for lookout ahead.

From the testimonies, we have a situation where ship A saw another vessel performing the actions of ship B. However, ship B did not see anything until sometime later when ship B was oriented so as to provide best view of ship A from the bridge of ship B.

"Causa proxima non remota spectatur."

The simplest explanation of the testimonies taken at face value is that the two ships were "in sight," but that ship B initially chose not to perceive ship A. Not seeing ship A was a seamanship decision by the crew of ship B for which they might have been held accountable under the Rules. However, failure to perceive another vessel does not mean the vesses were "not in sight" under the Rules of the Road.

There are many human errors and omissions in the memories entered into official testimony. This is compounded by deliberate distortions introduced both by the witness and the subjective questioning of the interrogators. The purpose of a legal proceding is seldom to discover the absolute truth, but rather to prove one point of view is superior to another. Facts are seldom important in courts or governmental hearings, the matter at hand is opinion--convincing either a jury in a legal proceding or the public at large in a governmental inquiry of a predetermined and politically expedient point of view.

In reading the testimonies it is critical to understand that many of the witnesses had much to fear. Lord knew he was being made a scapegoat. Californian's officers knew they could be held accountable for failing to properly notify their captain of a ship in distress. Fleet and Lee had to explain why the ship failed to dodge a lone iceberg which they apparently reported too late. White Star had to minimize any appearance of negligence on the part of Titanic and Captain Smith. Ismay had to dodge the issue of "privity and knowledge" of the management of the voyage. Senator Smith was a populist whose political aspirations could best be served by tweeking the nose of J.P. Morgan. Lord Mersey carefully turned his investigation away from every serious issue except the lack of lifeboats.

Most of the questions of fact we have surrounding the whole Titanic affair would have been answered if historians, not Senators and lawyers, had been asking the questions. And, of course, if the witnesses had been free to talk without fear of financial or political ruin. Unfortunately, we don't have such a "pure" record of events. What we have is highly distorted by legal, political, and economic pressures. And, the testimonies must be read with this in mind.

But, to discard the testimonies out of hand because they are not always mutually supportive is to destroy any possibility of gaining insight into what did take place. Californian apparently saw Titanic. The reverse is questionable. Titanic may or may not have seen Californian. That much is supported in the testimonies. To gain a better picture of what happened it is necessary to examine the "other ship" descriptions from both Titanic and Californian against events on the two ships and even on surrounding ships. Corroborations will appear for some of the testimony, while other testimony will be revealed as faulty.

This winnowing process will not reveal "The Truth." Rather, it produces nothing more than an ordering of probablities. Some events have a high probability of having taken place. Others will have such low probablility as to be ruled out as a working hypothesis. However even the testimony in this latter case cannot be discarded. It still must be explained within the context of the larger, more probable picture.

Unlike a court, we are not here to judge history but to reveal it.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Jon Hollis]

Sidelight visibility 5 miles average even today.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Another thing to remember was that the Titanic lookouts did not have glasses. As Jon pointed out, sidelights would have been difficult to see unless you were relatively close. Even from the Californian, Titanic's sidelights were not visible without the aid of glass. Paul had originally asked how Fleet or Lee could have missed seeing Californian's lights. He also assumed that the ships were within 10 miles of each other, which I do not believe was the case. But even if they would have looked in the direction of the Californian before the collision, it may not have been obvious that any light near the horizon would have been a mast light of a steamer. One of Titanic's other lookouts, George Hogg, had said "that on a very nice night, with the stars shining, sometimes you might think it was a ship when it was a star on the horizon. If you had glasses, you could soon find out whether it was a ship or not."

What we don't know is what Murdoch may have seen before the collision. He did have glasses on the bridge and would have been in a position to see Californian's mast lights a little after the time that Titanic's mast light would have been visible from the Californian. And as I had questioned once before, could the restarting of Titanic's engines for a short time have been an attempt to move slowly in the direction of the lights while a complete damage assessment was being done? Or was it part of the damage assessment process itself as Dave Gittens suggested? Don't know. But what is clear is that the priority that night was for the lookouts to be especially looking out for ice. And to that extent, they did their job.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>What we have is highly distorted by legal, political, and economic pressures. And, the testimonies must be read with this in mind.<<

And I think that sums things up in a nutshell. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that there were all kinds of players here with all kinds of agendas. That doesn't mean that one can't sort out some useful facts from same, but one needs to be mindful of the fact that very few of the players involved were disinterested observers.

The testimony is there and we have to make do with what we have, but caveat emptor applies on all evels.

 

[Noel F. Jones]

We seem to be assuming that all those (whether lookouts, officers, other crew members or passengers) apprised of the criticality of the situation aboard a sinking ship did not sweep the horizon in seach of rescue. I think that unlikely in the extreme.

As for the change in aspect of the Titanic being a factor apropos the foredeck blackout, whether as a result of manoeuvring or drift:

Normally a vessel disabled on ocean passage switches on all her deck lights. This would include the foredeck floods. Do we have any evidence on this?

Notwithstanding the foredeck blackout may have been thus compromised, if an all-round lookout was later thought necessary surely the deck lights could have been temporarily switched off for the purpose.

Be all that as it may:

In the absence of unequivocal evidence to the contrary, the only equitable conclusion available is that (apart from an ascent of rockets) neither vessel was visible from the other. As I long ago observed, it is a pity such aspects of the matter were never tested in the courts.

Causa proxima non remota spectatur indeed! You will notice that the more one says on this matter the less 'proximate' and the more 'remote' one tends to get!

Noel

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>In the absence of unequivocal evidence to the contrary, the only equitable conclusion available is that (apart from an ascent of rockets) neither vessel was visible from the other.<<

Not necesserily. Considering that;
•The Californain observed a large steamer firing socket signals and that
•The Titanic was the only steamer known/reported to have been firing same and that further.
•An "unknown steamer" was in fact observed by numerous witnesses aboard the Titanic,

I tend to believe that at some point and by whatever means, both ships were both observable to each other and in fact observed. The "when" that they were both visible to each other is what's being questioned here. I wouldn't conclude that just because the lookouts never reported making such an observation in their testimony that it was never made.

In fairness, maybe it wasn't.

And maybe they were never asked and chose not to volunteer the information.

 

[Paul Lee]

Hi Michael,
Just a few points: only Groves thought that the other ship was a large steamer- the other people who saw her thought she was a medium sized tramp. As for firing "socket signals", perhaps we should just stick to what Stone and Gibson saw - "rockets". Just a niggle!

Lee and Fleet were asked if they saw anything before the collision and both said no (although Lee only refers to a time of 11.30pm). Fleet himself says that he never saw anything after the collision either, and that his relief reported the light. His relief were never questioned on this matter.

Cheers

Paul

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>As for firing "socket signals", perhaps we should just stick to what Stone and Gibson saw - "rockets". Just a niggle!<<

Or perhaps we should call it what it actually was, which is what the Titanic was actually carrying. Rockets, in this sense, is a generic term. Point taken on what Fleet and Lee saw, though even then, I'd treat it with some caution. As the lookouts actualy on watch at the time the accident happened, they both had to know they were going to be under a microscope, and wouls "spin" things accordingly.

Be that as it may, the part I take some issue with is Noel's assertion that "In the absence of unequivocal evidence to the contrary, the only equitable conclusion available is that (apart from an ascent of rockets) neither vessel was visible from the other" Regardless of what each took the other for...such as speculation on the Titanic that they were looking at a cod banker...this one is very difficult to support.

It's hard to speculate on what something might be...tramp, large steamer, or cod banker...if you can't see it in the first place.

 

[Jon Hollis]

Why does one Moderator take over all the threads and relegate such NEGATIVE and OPINIONS and ATTITUDE "ALL" the time as if it were his own private forum????Administrators pls note.

 

[Christine Geyer]

And why does one member bait and try to cause strife where there is absolutely no reason to? The administrators note nothing but a peaceful discussion, which is actually the sense of this forum. Jon, if you like to contribute to the topic please feel free to do so. Noone is keeping you from adding your objective comments.

Best regards
Christine

 

[Noel F. Jones]

"Not necesserily. Considering that;
-The Californain observed a large steamer firing socket signals and that
-The Titanic was the only steamer known/reported to have been firing same and that further.
-An "unknown steamer" was in fact observed by numerous witnesses aboard the Titanic,"

Let's 'explode' this a bit:-

-The Californain observed a large steamer...

AND the firing of rocket signals...

And since (correct me if I'm wrong on this) these rocket signals purportedly only achieved masthead height, if the perceived steamer was the Titanic then WSL marine department seems to have been doing some keen if rather counter-productive purchasing.

-The Titanic was the only steamer known/reported to have been firing same...

I take no issue there..

-An "unknown steamer" was in fact observed by numerous witnesses aboard the Titanic...

But since Californian was visibly 'morsing' her own unknown steamer at the material time, which these numerous witnesses do not seem to have reported, it is unlikely they were witnessing the Californian.

I rest my case (provisionally....)

Noel

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>And since (correct me if I'm wrong on this) these rocket signals purportedly only achieved masthead height,<<

Does it matter? If they were seen...and they were...then they were seen. Some things just don't go away no matter how awkward they are.

>>But since Californian was visibly 'morsing' her own unknown steamer at the material time, which these numerous witnesses do not seem to have reported, it is unlikely they were witnessing the Californian. <<

Really? If the Californian was seperated by ten or twelve miles, it's unlikely that the morse lamp signals would have been easily visable. Even if they were, any white light shining out on Titanic's decks could have easily dazzled anyone who may have been looking. (Assuming anybody was.)

>>I rest my case (provisionally....)<<

Really? Can you name another candidate? One that hasn't been previously refuted? Can you name any other ship that was firing socket signals/rockets that night? Mind you, I have no problem with the idea of a third party in between, but that does not in any sense take away from whatever accountability the Calfornian bears in this whole mess. All it would mean is that there was another player involved.