We've been here before, Sam.
The facts are very clear here as to the heading of C and the bearing of the steamer at midnight. If it were only one eyewitness to say that her head was pointing ENE by compass at that time, then I would question that heading. But we have two independent people saying she was pointing ENE by compass, and we have two intendent people saying the steamer was dead on the starboard beam at that time, and one specifically stating that the steamer was bearing SSE by compass. And Lord accepted what they had to say about that. I have no problem with C heading ENE by compass at 10:20 after she came to a stop, and then heading NE by compass around 11:15 and back to ENE by compass around midnight.
As for your question about the wreck site. It has no bearing (excuse the pun) on what was reported by her deck officers. You're trying to use that to rubbish what Groves, Stone, Gibson and Lord all said because you want to believe that Lord's DR was perfect, and that C didn't drift at all from that position all night. Yes, we've been down this road before. the "facts
Rebuke the evidence of Lord? Look up BI 6779. I'm done.Once again you illustrate your willingness to be selective in the evidence you use from individual witnesses.
In this case , you use the evidence of Groves and Stone to rebuke the evidence of Lord.
It does not matter where the rockets were seen. What matters is that 30 minutes later Carpathia herself and her deck lights were seen by Stewart and Stone.Q 1: If, as you and others claim that the vessel lights seen from Californian were displayed by Titanic, and if the lights seen from Titanic were displayed by Californian, then please explain why the signals fired by Carpathia were seen right on Californian's visible horizon?
Just as with the Titanic. The Californian navigational lights were not as bright.why didn't |Carpathia's lookouts see Californian to the NW?
You wrote a book, in which you invented some evidence, misinterpreted some others, ignored some more and in the end failed to make your case. So, it is a great time to be done now.I'm done.
You can't or won't answer my question, Sam? I'll let others read into that what they may.Rebuke the evidence of Lord? Look up BI 6779. I'm done.
And now it is a good time to repeat your pet speculation about Californian swinging erratically and in retrograde without anybody noticing.Stone: "We saw nothing further until about 3.20 when we thought we observed two faint lights in the sky about S.S.W. and a little distance apart. "
It is a usual response by a failed researcher who is unable to prove his case even after he invented some evidence, ignored some others and misinterpreted the third.Mila, you're not worth the effort.
Here is only one example on how you are inventing evidence, Sam.Mila, you're not worth the effort.
Your usual selectivity when dealing with evidence. you can't or won't answer Sam. I thought you said you were "done"?Stone: "We saw nothing further until about 3.20 when we thought we observed two faint lights in the sky about S.S.W. and a little distance apart. "
what is it with people making up that people made evidence in their books??You wrote a book, in which you invented some evidence, misinterpreted some others, ignored some more and in the end failed to make your case. So, it is a great time to be done now.
The problem is not made-up evidence, Cam. I suggest to you that problems arise when a researcher or historian has what you have seen me refer to as a "eureka moment". i.e. they cannot visualize the word-painting of a witness, or it contradicts the word-painting of another witness, so they come up with the inward conclusion of "Ah! that is what really must have happened and the witness (or witnesses) was either lying or stupid". Then they develop a scenario around their sudden enlightenment. To do this, the individual has to ignore evidence which contradicts.what is it with people making up that people made evidence in their books??
"failed researcher"
ironic
I think you write an excellent answer Jim, thank youThe problem is not made-up evidence, Cam. I suggest to you that problems arise when a researcher or historian has what you have seen me refer to as a "eureka moment". i.e. they cannot visualize the word-painting of a witness, or it contradicts the word-painting of another witness, so they come up with the inward conclusion of "Ah! that is what really must have happened and the witness (or witnesses) was either lying or stupid". Then they develop a scenario around their sudden enlightenment. To do this, the individual has to ignore evidence which contradicts.
Dare I say it? Many put two and two together and get five.
As a classic example of the foregoing, I suggest you very carefully read the exchanges between The Inquisitors, Captain Lord and 2nd Officer Stone at the UK Inquiry. If you do, you will discover that the answers to the questions were decided before they were asked. Only answers which "pleased" were tolerated and when the subject matter was beyond the comprehension of the inquisitor, it was quickly dismissed as irrelevent since in certain instances, it destroyed the pre-judgment of The Court.
As others on this board and other sites have pointed out Senator Smith didn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the room if you know what I mean. Whether his concerns were actually genuine or he was grand standing for political reasons I think only he knows that. But I will give him credit for getting at it as fast as they did before all the stories became the same.I think you write an excellent answer Jim, thank you
these days that’s how the sinking theories are made anyway. Like the stupid “drain the titanic” theory which ignored all other testimony of the ship breaking in two at the surface for 3 men who weren’t paying attention to the ship’s movements.
Regards to the inquiry, it seemed Mr. Senator Smith was very concerned about those lights and became biased towards anyone who saw them, if you know what I mean
An example of a eureka moment:The problem is not made-up evidence, Cam. I suggest to you that problems arise when a researcher or historian has what you have seen me refer to as a "eureka moment". i.e. they cannot visualize the word-painting of a witness, or it contradicts the word-painting of another witness, so they come up with the inward conclusion of "Ah! that is what really must have happened and the witness (or witnesses) was either lying or stupid". Then they develop a scenario around their sudden enlightenment. To do this, the individual has to ignore evidence which contradicts.
fascinating, thanks Sam! but why would Stone and Groves lie?? Maybe to cover their butts that they were closer to the sinking?An example of a eureka moment:
The diagram below is a visualization of evidence, with citations included, all of which mutually supports each other. Yet, the eureka moment for the person quoted above is that all of this must be wrong because Lord's overnight DR position is sacrosanct and unassailable.
See Cam, if you draw a line from Lord's DR position at 42° 05'N, 50° 07'W, to the now known wreck site position at 41° 43.5'N, 49° 56.8'W, you find a bearing line that runs 160.6° true, or S19.4°E true, from the DR position that Lord gave. That's 1.7 points east of true South, which, if stated in points, would be S by E 3/4 E true, or for all practical purposes, SSE true. Therefore, eureka moment, Stone and Groves either lied about the ship's heading and steamer's bearing when they both independently stated that they were by reference to the compass, or they converted those angles to true headings and true bearings in their heads despite stating that they were by compass.
("Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.")
Oh, by the way, to convert from compass to true one simply has to subtract the total compass correction, which in this case was given as 22° (about 2 points) west for the date and place. Thus, to make things fit, Californian's compass heading when Stone took over the watch from Groves at 12:15am would have to be due East, and the steamer's compass bearing would have to be due South for this eureka moment to play out.
Of course, if you accept all the evidence as stated at face value below, then Lord's overnight DR position had to be wrong, and Californian was further south and possibly somewhat further west of where Lord took her to be. That's the other eureka moment.
View attachment 76277