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

[Samuel Halpern]

 

[Cam Houseman]

Hi Jim I'm bored too

Didn't Edith Russel say she could see people on the decks of the ship?


If Captain Smith said "Go row over to that ship there" and people actually tried, how close was the actual ship?

didn't the survivors say the ship seemed to move away the whole time? but how??

How far did a lifeboat manage to row toward the ship's light?

some things I was thinking about today

 

[Jim Currie]

View attachment 76216

We've been here before, Sam.

Lord was reading from the Log Book when he stated:
" I turned around and headed E.N.E. by the compass. I twisted her head to E.N.E." (about NE True).
It follows that at 10-25 pm the beam was pointing SSE by compass. (about SE True).
But your witness, friend Groves, said Californian was heading NE by compass, NNE True at 11-10 pm that night - 49 minutes later, which means the beam was pointing ESE True at that same time.
Groves also said she was swinging slowly all the time to the right. If so, how was it possible for the nearby vessel to still be abeam to starboard bearing SE by the same compass an hour and 5 minutes later?
However, if Californian's bow was pointing NE True at 10-35pm as stated by Lord, then her beam was pointing SE true and her bow never moved for almost 2 hours.

I suggest to you these guys did not accurately recall how the ship was heading at midnight. Gibson got his information second-hand.
You still haven't explained how the bearing of the wreck site from Lord's calculated stop position is exactly SSE True.
Stay safe.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

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.

 

[Jim Currie]

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

The facts are only clear to you Sam because you are blinkered by your preconceived notions and have gone into print with them. That is understandable.

You wrote:
"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."
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. Yet, in the past you have implied that the evidence given by Stone was nonsense and the nonsensical evidence given by Groves made sense. What's it to be , Sam?

We can settle this argument concerning visiblity of lights to everyone's satisfaction if you blow away the smoke and give a straight forward, no frills answer to an age old question I have put to you ad nauseum. I will make one last attempt.
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? I remind you that last time you claimed the horizon was invisible - that is total rubbish! So level-up (forgive the pun).
Q:2 If, as you and others claim, the situation of visibility was as in the last question...why, if Carpathia arrived on the scene of the disaster in darkness was she not seen arriving in the SE by Californian's lookout and why didn't |Carpathia's lookouts see Californian to the NW? After all. you and others claim that those on Titanic (when at the same spot).. saw the lights of the Californian. You also claim amazing visibility ranges for a single white light.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

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.

Rebuke the evidence of Lord? Look up BI 6779. I'm done.

 

[Mila]

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?

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.

why didn't |Carpathia's lookouts see Californian to the NW?

Just as with the Titanic. The Californian navigational lights were not as bright.
Besides, another factor could have played a role. Carpathia was brightly lit. It is harder to see the lights if an observer is located in a brightly lit place.

 

[Mila]

I'm done.

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.

 

[Jim Currie]

Rebuke the evidence of Lord? Look up BI 6779. I'm done.

You can't or won't answer my question, Sam? I'll let others read into that what they may.

As for your response:

"6779. Could you tell her bearing at all?
- Well, I have heard it since. I heard what it was at midnight - S.S.E. from us by compass."

Sounds familiar. Now, where did I see this elsewhere? Ah! now I remember:

"7433. Do you know at all which way your ship, the quote; Californian," was heading?
- I was told afterward that she was heading east-north-east."

Now, who do you think subsequently told this to Lord and Gibson?
Not that it matters because it was impossible for anyone on Californian to have seen Titanic's lights and vice versa if Stone and Gibson saw Carpathia's signals right on the horizon and you know that very well.

You are flogging a dead horse, Sam, why not swallow your pride and admit it? There is no shame in admitting you're wrong.
Tell you what - show me I'm wrong about Carpathia's signals and I will make you a very public apology. Now, what could be fairer than that?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

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. "

 

[Mila]

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. "

And now it is a good time to repeat your pet speculation about Californian swinging erratically and in retrograde without anybody noticing.

 

[Mila]

Mila, you're not worth the effort.

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.
I, on the other hand, could prove each and every statement I have made in regards to your book.

 

[Mila]

Mila, you're not worth the effort.

Here is only one example on how you are inventing evidence, Sam.
You needed that infamous yellow-funneled steamer to be anything but Carpathia because her being Carpathia is completely destroying all your speculations in regards to the distance between the Titanic and Californian.
So you told your readers that she was seen at civil twilight although both eyewitness testified they saw her after the sunrise, you told your readers that she was not the same steamer Stewart saw at 4am although Stewart clearly stated she was, and you told your readers that one could see colors of a distant steamer during civil twilight, which is false.
So if all of the above is not constitutes to inventing of evidence I am not sure what is.

BTW, if I am not worth your effort, why did you reference my research in your self-published book?

 

[Jim Currie]

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. "

Your usual selectivity when dealing with evidence. you can't or won't answer Sam. I thought you said you were "done"?

For the record: Stone also said of that same incident: I saw a white light in the sky right dead on the beam.
8009. (The Commissioner.) How far away? A - At a very great distance I should judge.....8010. - Such a distance that if it had been much further I should have seen no light at all, merely a faint flash.
Gibson's memory of the same event:
7586. Am I to understand you to say that at twenty minutes to four the same morning you saw three more rockets?
- Yes, Sir.
7596. Could you see when you saw this flash at all how far away you thought it was?
- It was right on the horizon."

You can't hide facts, Sam.

You know perfectly well that if the separation distance between Titanic and Californian had been 14 miles, then when Carpathia was 10 miles SE of Boxhall in boat 2, she was 14 + 10 = 24 miles, in almost a straight line from the observers on Californian.
You also know that if Carpathia had been firing socket signals, the airburst of these would have been well above the visible horizon of observers on a 14-mile-away Californian.

As James Purfoy told Heath Ledger in "A Night's tale": "You have been weighed, measured and found wanting" "Daniel" said much the same thing before him.

 

[Cam Houseman]

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.

what is it with people making up that people made evidence in their books??

"failed researcher"

ironic

 

[Jim Currie]

what is it with people making up that people made evidence in their books??

"failed researcher"

ironic

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.
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.

 

[Cam Houseman]

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.
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.

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

 

[Steven Christian]

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

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.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

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.

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.

 

[Cam Houseman]

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

fascinating, thanks Sam! but why would Stone and Groves lie?? Maybe to cover their butts that they were closer to the sinking?