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

[Jim Currie]

OK, here's such a question:
Is there any reason NOT to believe Gibson when he wrote:
"I then got the binoculars and had just got them focused on the vessel when I observed a white flash apparently on her deck, followed by a faint streak towards the sky which then burst into white stars." ?

No, Sam, there is absolutely no reason for us to doubt that Gibson thought he saw a flash on the nearby vessel's deck. After all, he was there, we were not.
Now; since I have had the courtesy to answer the question, surely reciprocation is only fair. I ask my question yet again - this time with a little sketch since it seems my written version was not understood.

I do not expect a rational answer, but here's hoping.

 

[Jim Currie]

Jim,

I've been busy the last few weeks.

I disagree with all your recent posts, and I agree with Sam.

Despite your maritime experience, you offer, indeed brow beat us, with specious arguments that do not bear close examination.

You won't persuade me.

Sam has got it right.

Sam and I differ in a number of minor details, but I don't doubt his distance findings whatsoever or his overall conclusions.

Cheers,
Julian

So be it, Julian. In reply, all I can do is quote you a wise caution:
"It is the part of a wise man to keep himself today for tomorrow, and not to venture all his eggs in one basket.
Miguel de Cervantes."

 

[Cam Houseman]

Paul, I fully agree with you.

or we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the Inquires (specifically the break-up)

 

[Paul Burrell]

No, Sam, there is absolutely no reason for us to doubt that Gibson thought he saw a flash on the nearby vessel's deck. After all, he was there, we were not.
Now; since I have had the courtesy to answer the question, surely reciprocation is only fair. I ask my question yet again - this time with a little sketch since it seems my written version was not understood.
View attachment 76299
I do not expect a rational answer, but here's hoping.

Hi Jim

I expect Stone and Gibson did not see Carpathia’s rockets for the reasons I set out in my previous post. They weren’t looking in the right place, they forgot or were distracted by something else. Or, maybe they didn’t know what the rockets meant. After all, Stone saw rockets hours earlier and couldn’t fathom what they were.

Just because someone did not see something doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

Just in case you think I am being dismissive or irrational, here’s an example. In lifeboat 1, Symons categorically saw Titanic break in two. In the same lifeboat, Horswill did not see Titanic break in two. In the same lifeboat, Pusey saw the sinking but not clearly (maybe he needed a pair of spectacles!).

Prior to that, Boxhall sees white, red and green lights of a vessel. Standing next to him, Rowe only sees a white light.

Furthermore, as this is also a subject of discussion on this thread, as you would presumably agree with Symon’s evidence on the break up, that wouldn’t mean that you would discount the entirety of Horswill and Pusey’s evidence.

 

[Cam Houseman]

Prior to that, Boxhall sees white, red and green lights of a vessel. Standing next to him, Rowe only sees a white light.

Sorry for a stupid question, but a white light would indicate the masthead?

 

[Jim Currie]

Hi Jim

I expect Stone and Gibson did not see Carpathia’s rockets for the reasons I set out in my previous post. They weren’t looking in the right place, they forgot or were distracted by something else. Or, maybe they didn’t know what the rockets meant. After all, Stone saw rockets hours earlier and couldn’t fathom what they were.

Just because someone did not see something doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

Just in case you think I am being dismissive or irrational, here’s an example. In lifeboat 1, Symons categorically saw Titanic break in two. In the same lifeboat, Horswill did not see Titanic break in two. In the same lifeboat, Pusey saw the sinking but not clearly (maybe he needed a pair of spectacles!).

Prior to that, Boxhall sees white, red and green lights of a vessel. Standing next to him, Rowe only sees a white light.

Furthermore, as this is also a subject of discussion on this thread, as you would presumably agree with Symon’s evidence on the break up, that wouldn’t mean that you would discount the entirety of Horswill and Pusey’s evidence.

Paul...read the evidence,.
Both men focused binoculars on the spot where they saw the flash of Carpathia's signals. On all normal ships, as any deck officer will tell you, that is an automatic reaction to a sighting such as was seen. Distress signals to not simply flash and go out. If they did, they would be as useful as a chocolate fire guard. In real life...and I have seen them...they seem to hang in the sky, and "melt"! slowly downward before finally extinguishing. The idea is to be visible to a potential rescuer for as long as possible. The parachute signals was an upgrading of the same idea.
I am not making this up. It is not the product of a fertile imagination. It is a fact which no one on this sites can deny...hence the deafening silence to my request for an answer.

Stone couldn't fathom out what he was seeing because it did not sound alarm bells in his head - not because he did not know what distress signals were supposed to look like. A Distress signal is designed to do what didn't happen. How many ships do you think saw Carpathia's distress signals and thought she was in distress?

As for what Boxhall saw v. what Rowe saw...Boxhall was using binoculars. He perfectly described an approaching vessel a vessel which came on a steady course, then slowed down when it met the ice and turned this way and that before turning away to starboard and showing a stern light. Hence the green and red being seen together.
QM Rowe simply did what he was told and that would most certainly not have been standing beside Boxhall and Captain Smith admiring the view. In any case, the vessel on the bow was seen at the time the second distress signal was first transmitted.

The red light was seen with the naked eye at least 20 minutes after the second distress signal was transmitted
The first sighting was of a white light fine on the bow, However, when the red light was seen, the vessel showing it was no more than 5 miles away. About that same time, QM Rowe arrived on the bridge. How the heck did he see a white light half a point on the port bow before then?
For your information and that of others... anyone standing on the same side of Titanic's bridge when the morse light was being used would have had their night vision seriously impaired. Only a person under cover or on the opposite bridge wing with binoculars would have been able to clearly keep the approaching vessel under observation.

 

[Jim Currie]

Sorry for a stupid question, but a white light would indicate the masthead?

Well spotted, Cam.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

No, Sam, there is absolutely no reason for us to doubt that Gibson thought he saw a flash on the nearby vessel's deck. After all, he was there, we were not.

Good. We agree on something. Gibson saw the flash as the signal left the deck, saw the faint streak as the shell was propelled skyward, and then saw the burst into white stars that followed.
If that came from a vessel 23 miles away, which you claim was the distance between Californian and Titanic, then what Gibson saw could not have come from Titanic if she was 23 miles away.

As far as you question goes, lets correct a few things. Stone and Gibson were not on deck 3 hours after 1:20am. They were on deck 2 hours later, at 3:20am when Carpathia was firing rockets. And what they saw can be show by slightly modifying your picture which shows a very bright sky which didn't exist. So below is a picture split into two pictures. The one on top is for 1:20am and the one below for 3:20am which came from a vessel that was about 10-11 miles beyond where the first one was 2 hours previous.

 

[Jim Currie]

Good. We agree on something. Gibson saw the flash as the signal left the deck, saw the faint streak as the shell was propelled skyward, and then saw the burst into white stars that followed.
If that came from a vessel 23 miles away, which you claim was the distance between Californian and Titanic, then what Gibson saw could not have come from Titanic if she was 23 miles away.

As far as you question goes, lets correct a few things. Stone and Gibson were not on deck 3 hours after 1:20am. They were on deck 2 hours later, at 3:20am when Carpathia was firing rockets. And what they saw can be show by slightly modifying your picture which shows a very bright sky which didn't exist. So below is a picture split into two pictures. The one on top is for 1:20am and the one below for 3:20am which came from a vessel that was about 10-11 miles beyond where the first one was 2 hours previous.

View attachment 76310

There you go Sam, picking 'nits' again. In fact, the interval between the first flash first time and the first flash second time was 2 hours 35 minutes. But it's not the times but the flashes we are concerned about.
Are you kidding? Either that or you have never seen a flash on the horizon. What you illustrate is simply a rocket burst a little above the horizon. The term used by both witnesses was ON the horizon. Or are you quoting from a different source of evidence?
Both were using binoculars and both said their observation was "right on the horizon". Obviously, you have never seen what was being described. Allow me to "enlighten" you.

But if you don't like that, then explain why, at 14 miles, they didn't see Carpathia's navigation lights., yet according to you, they saw Titanic's navigation lights when they must have been more than 20 miles away.

 

[Jim Currie]

There you go Sam, picking 'nits' again. In fact, the interval between the first flash first time and the first flash second time was 2 hours 35 minutes. But it's not the times but the flashes we are concerned about.
Are you kidding? Either that or you have never seen a flash on the horizon. What you illustrate is simply a rocket burst a little above the horizon. The term used by both witnesses was ON the horizon. Or are you quoting from a different source of evidence?
Both were using binoculars and both said their observation was "right on the horizon". Obviously, you have never seen what was being described. Allow me to "enlighten" you.
View attachment 76312
But if you don't like that, then explain why, at 14 miles, they didn't see Carpathia's navigation lights., yet according to you, they saw Titanic's navigation lights when they must have been more than 20 miles away.

PS: An object seen right on the horizon at that time... given the physical conditions... would in fact be 28.31 minutes of arc below the horizon of an observer with a height of eye of 55 feet above sea level. It follows that an object seen half a degree of arc above the same observer's horizon, would, in fact be right on it.

 

[Cam Houseman]

Survivors sa

There you go Sam, picking 'nits' again. In fact, the interval between the first flash first time and the first flash second time was 2 hours 35 minutes. But it's not the times but the flashes we are concerned about.
Are you kidding? Either that or you have never seen a flash on the horizon. What you illustrate is simply a rocket burst a little above the horizon. The term used by both witnesses was ON the horizon. Or are you quoting from a different source of evidence?
Both were using binoculars and both said their observation was "right on the horizon". Obviously, you have never seen what was being described. Allow me to "enlighten" you.
View attachment 76312
But if you don't like that, then explain why, at 14 miles, they didn't see Carpathia's navigation lights., yet according to you, they saw Titanic's navigation lights when they must have been more than 20 miles away.

Survivors saw the running lights of the Carpathia as she approached, right? (I.e Lifeboat 2 when they were the first to be picked up)?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Obviously, you have never seen what was being described. Allow me to "enlighten" you.

I have had enough of your so called enlightenment. As usual, you interpret things the way you want to. My interpretation of what Gibson said is pretty straight forward. BI 7597 makes it pretty clear what he saw once he got the glasses on them.

7596. Could you see when you saw this flash at all how far away you thought it was? - It was right on the horizon.
7597. What sort of a light was it? You called it a rocket? Was it a flash; did you see it go up into the sky? - Yes.
7598. What colour was it? - White.

And guess what? About 20 minutes later, according to what Stone tells Stewart, Stone thinks he see's a light to the southward.

8886. Did you ask him whether he had seen anything else? - [Stewart] He [Stone] said he thought there was a light to southward about 20 minutes to 4.

Which by around 4 o'clock becomes two masthead lights that Stewart picked up and pointed them out to Stone who acted like he saw that vessel for the very first time. Now what vessel could that be to the southward at that time and little abaft the beam? Oh, must that not be mystery vessel Y, the one that fired rockets right on the horizon a little distance apart in the SSW around 3:20?

 

[Jim Currie]

I have had enough of your so called enlightenment. As usual, you interpret things the way you want to. My interpretation of what Gibson said is pretty straight forward. BI 7597 makes it pretty clear what he saw once he got the glasses on them.

7596. Could you see when you saw this flash at all how far away you thought it was? - It was right on the horizon.
7597. What sort of a light was it? You called it a rocket? Was it a flash; did you see it go up into the sky? - Yes.
7598. What colour was it? - White.

And guess what? About 20 minutes later, according to what Stone tells Stewart, Stone thinks he see's a light to the southward.

8886. Did you ask him whether he had seen anything else? - [Stewart] He [Stone] said he thought there was a light to southward about 20 minutes to 4.

Which by around 4 o'clock becomes two masthead lights that Stewart picked up and pointed them out to Stone who acted like he saw that vessel for the very first time. Now what vessel could that be to the southward at that time and little abaft the beam? Oh, must that not be mystery vessel Y, the one that fired rockets right on the horizon a little distance apart in the SSW around 3:20?

Now, now, Sam, keep your hair on. Let's keep this discussion in perspective.
First of all, my interpretation of marine phenomenon and the actions of sailormen is not "so-called" it is more likely to be factual since I am the one who has actually seen and been involved with such things on many occasions.
Consequently, the word "Interpretation" should not be confused with the expression "educated guess".
There is very little "pretty clear" about Gibson's evidence relative to the last hour of his Watch.
For instance: how can a rocket be "right on the horizon" and go "right up in the air"? That is a contradiction in terms. In fact, your bold emphasis also contradicts your own argument.
The word "rocket" in that exchange is used by the questioner and the witness but the description of what was seen was a "flash".
No doubt the following will be dismissed out of hand, but one must try.
The first flash in the firing sequence of a signal is on the deck. Then there is a second flash at maximum trajectory... thereafter, and for some time, the signal gives off a steady light from multiple - closely concentrated sources. Gibson described seeing a flash which he called a rocket. You like his evidence during this part of his interrogation, so consider the following:

In their reports to Lord on April 18, Gibson wrote:
"At about 3:20 looking over the weather cloth, I observed a rocket about two points before the beam (Port), which I reported to the Second Officer. About three minutes later I saw another rocket right abeam which was followed later by another one about two points before the beam."
Whereas Stone wrote:
" 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."

Stone saw lights in the sky at 20 minutes to 4, not a ship's masthead lights. Gibson referred to them as "rockets" and "flashes".
However, Gibson also said:
"7574. What was it? A: - About 3. 40 the Second Officer whistled down to the Captain again.
7575. Twenty minutes to four? A: - Yes.
7576. Did you see him doing it? A: - Yes.
7577. Did you hear what he said? A: - No.
7578. Did anything happen after that? A: - Yes.
7579. What? A: - I saw three more rockets, Sir.

So if I am reading this correctly, Gibson saw three flashes at 3- 20 am and 40 minutes later, at 4-40 am he saw 3 rockets.

Don't speculate, Sam -then select the evidence you like - consider all of it.
Gibson's recollections do not make sense.
For a ship with and air-shape such as the C to swing 4 points...45 degrees...22.5 degrees to port then back another 22.5 degrees in 3 minutes seems a bit far fetched to say the least.
A stopped ship tends to lie athwart the wind, The point of influence of wind moves depending on the profile of the ship presented to the wind. On a ship with midship accommodation, the PI will be fairly close to the CG i.e. at the mid-length point. All which means that C would not have been swinging back and forth at such a rate. (Of course you know that).
What you are unable to deny is the fact that both men used the expression "right on the horizon" and I have previously pointed out to you the true meaning of that expression when taking into consideration the presence of abnormal refraction. A fact which once again, you ignored.
Apart from the foregoing- am I correct in suggesting that you have already argued with another member that the vessel lights seen at 4 am were probably those of the Mount Temple?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Apart from the foregoing- am I correct in suggesting that you have already argued with another member that the vessel lights seen at 4 am were probably those of the Mount Temple?

No, I believe that the lights seen at 4am were from the Carpathia which had, or was about to, pick up lifeboat #2. and the vessel seen at 5am was Mount Temple which first had arrived on the scene from the SW around 4:30. According to Stewart and Stone, the lights at 4am were seen to the southward and a little abaft the beam. According to Lord, the vessel seen at around 5am, which he saw and had a yellow funnel, was to the SW about 8 miles off. One was on the eastern side of the ice and the other on the western side of the ice.

First of all, my interpretation of marine phenomenon and the actions of sailormen is not "so-called" it is more likely to be factual since I am the one who has actually seen and been involved with such things on many occasions.

Sorry, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts.

 

[Jim Currie]

No, I believe that the lights seen at 4am were from the Carpathia which had, or was about to, pick up lifeboat #2. and the vessel seen at 5am was Mount Temple which first had arrived on the scene from the SW around 4:30. According to Stewart and Stone, the lights at 4am were seen to the southward and a little abaft the beam. According to Lord, the vessel seen at around 5am, which he saw and had a yellow funnel, was to the SW about 8 miles off. One was on the eastern side of the ice and the other on the western side of the ice.


Sorry, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts.

OK! Sam. Let's try it another way, using evidence that has been there since "the year dot".

IF the lights seen by Stewart at 4 am were those of the Carpathia and as we know, dawn was breaking, then please explain the following:

Stewart described the vessel to the southward of Californian as having:
"8598- ...two white masthead lights and a few lights amidships.
and at daylight
8851. .... - A four-masted steamer with one funnel."

IF, as you claim that vessel was Carpathia, then why, since the vessel's lights were unmistakable and in daylight, her shape and masts were clearly visible, did not those on Carpathia have the same night and day view of Californian?

Why, at daylight - did those on Carpathia not see three vessels to the northward instead of only two?
Why didn't Stewart and Lord see three or even 2 instead of just one to the southward at daylight?
That which is sauce for the goose, is likewise, sauce for the gander is it not?

On the subject of lights (which this is about) -
Please explain how it was possible for a witness to see a red sidelight with the naked eye at around 1 am from the boat deck of Titanic, or, in fact, from any position if the vessel showing it was the Californian and she was 14 miles away.

First time I've heard of facts coming in "sets", Sam. However, facts are facts, no more - no less. Entitlement to them is only regulated in non-Democratic organizations. I'm sure you'll agree.
However, try not to mix them with suppositions or guesswork.