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

[Samuel Halpern]

Let's define dawn breaking. You can look this up yourself, but the data I found from the US Naval observatory site were the following times for the location of the wreck site on April 15, 1912.

For 41°43'N 49°57'W (Titanic wreck site)
04/15/1912
Astronomical Twilight 07:00 GMT = 3:50 Californian time
Nautical Twilight 07:37 GMT = 04:27 Californian time
Moon rise 07:55 GMT = 04:45 Californian time
Civil Twilight 08:11 GMT = 05:01 Californian time
Sun rise 08:40 GMT = 05:30 Californian time

At 4am only lights could be seen. Carpathia was not just sitting there after about 4:30, but according to Rostron, started to dodge about starting to pick up other boats. It wasn't always presenting a broadside view. Neither was Californian if she continued to swing toward the north, shutting in her most of her nav lights except for her dimmer, lower-lying stern light. It was Rostron who noticed those two vessels around 5 o'clock that were 7 to 8 miles away from him. His other officers claimed they saw what turned out to be Californian around 6am, judging her to be around 10 miles to the north at that time. Remember also that the seascape was dotted with a lot of bergs of all sizes which became visible in daylight, including those embedded within the field of pack ice. Things are more easily spotted when they are moving.

People only notice what they noticed. Take Stone for example. Until Stewart pointed out to him the lights of this steamer to their southward at 4am, Stone never noticed it before. And speaking of Stewart, his "few lights amidships" when being questioned at the inquiry where originally described as "a lot of lights amidships" in his deposition taken before he testified, which he was asked to read from at the inquiry.

 

[Jim Currie]

Let's define dawn breaking. You can look this up yourself, but the data I found from the US Naval observatory site were the following times for the location of the wreck site on April 15, 1912.

For 41°43'N 49°57'W (Titanic wreck site)
04/15/1912
Astronomical Twilight 07:00 GMT = 3:50 Californian time
Nautical Twilight 07:37 GMT = 04:27 Californian time
Moon rise 07:55 GMT = 04:45 Californian time
Civil Twilight 08:11 GMT = 05:01 Californian time
Sun rise 08:40 GMT = 05:30 Californian time

At 4am only lights could be seen. Carpathia was not just sitting there after about 4:30, but according to Rostron, started to dodge about starting to pick up other boats. It wasn't always presenting a broadside view. Neither was Californian if she continued to swing toward the north, shutting in her most of her nav lights except for her dimmer, lower-lying stern light. It was Rostron who noticed those two vessels around 5 o'clock that were 7 to 8 miles away from him. His other officers claimed they saw what turned out to be Californian around 6am, judging her to be around 10 miles to the north at that time. Remember also that the seascape was dotted with a lot of bergs of all sizes which became visible in daylight, including those embedded within the field of pack ice. Things are more easily spotted when they are moving.

People only notice what they noticed. Take Stone for example. Until Stewart pointed out to him the lights of this steamer to their southward at 4am, Stone never noticed it before. And speaking of Stewart, his "few lights amidships" when being questioned at the inquiry where originally described as "a lot of lights amidships" in his deposition taken before he testified, which he was asked to read from at the inquiry.

We don't need the US Naval Observatory input. You could have saved yourself the effort because as Gibson and Rostron tell us:
"7594. (The Solicitor-General.) Yes, my Lord, Roman candles. (To the Witness.) If it was twenty minutes to four it was not very far off the beginning of dawn, was it?
- No, dawn was just breaking.
7595. Had it got any lighter? A: Yes.
And from Rostron:
"25473. When the boat [No.2]was alongside of me daylight broke,"
There was not enough light to see all the boats at that time, but by 5 o'clock, Rostron could see all the survivors and he would also have seen boats heading straight for him. That was also the time that both captains Lord of the Californian and Moore of the Mount Temple got ready to get underway again. For the hour up until then, Carpathia was presenting a broad aspect to the Californian and vice-versa.
If Rostron did any "dodging about" he would have done it at dead slow speed and always would have stopped beam-on to the wind.

Rostron saw Californian at 8 pm and positively identified her shortly thereafter. When first seen, she was about 6 miles away bearing WSW True.
We know Californian got underway again at 6 am. We also know that for the two hours between 6 am and 8 am, she ran slow speed for 20 minutes and the remainder of the time - 1 hour 40 minutes - at Full maximum speed. Allowing for build-up, she would have covered a distance of about 18 miles at full speed. During the entire 2 hours and for the hour before it, she would have been belching black smoke and highly visible. No way, was Californian 10 miles to the northward. In any case, you believe she was to the northwest of the location. If so, then at a rough guess, she would have been about 12 miles to the SW of Carpathia at 8 pm

Rostron said he was dodging about but he also said:
"25481. ...- I cannot say which were the boats we took up. I took them as they came along,"
In any case, a good seaman would have provided a lee for the approaching boats and consequently, since the wind was from the northward, would have been lying at right angles to it and presenting a beam-on view to observers to the northward. No end-on scenarios.
By the same token, Californian was doing likewise. and would have lain beam-on to the same wind.
Stone said the vessel to the south was heading the same way as Californian - so it was not Mount Temple.
Both he and Stewart saw their vessel to the south so it could never have been Carpathia since you claim she would have been SE at that time... between 4 and 6 points abaft the port beam.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Both he and Stewart saw their vessel to the south so it could never have been Carpathia since you claim she would have been SE at that time..

You must be right. It must have been the mystery vessel that had fired those rockets at 3:20am. You know, the ones that Stone said he saw to the SSW. Hmm? That steamer must have come through the ice field from west to east to get to the south of them by 4am, and then turn around to face westward so it pointed in the same direction that Californian was at that time. OK, mystery solved.

 

[Jim Currie]

You must be right. It must have been the mystery vessel that had fired those rockets at 3:20am. You know, the ones that Stone said he saw to the SSW. Hmm? That steamer must have come through the ice field from west to east to get to the south of them by 4am, and then turn around to face westward so it pointed in the same direction that Californian was at that time. OK, mystery solved.

No, Sam. Using Brad's "razor" (and if it was on the same side of the ice Barrier and stopped against i) it was more than likely the vessel seen earlier by Rostron and his Officers. Incidentally, why do you ignore the obvious since it seems to support your NW trending ice barrier? (even although those incompetent fools who actually saw it and sailed up and down it, said it was trending north- South.)
And of course, I'm right. Why has it taken you so long to admit it?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

No, Sam. Using Brad's "razor" (and if it was on the same side of the ice Barrier and stopped against i) it was more than likely the vessel seen earlier by Rostron and his Officers.

OK, then the rockets seen at 3:20am in the SSW came from some other mysterious vessel. Maybe it was Lord's yellow funneled boat seen around 5am to the SW about 8 miles off?

 

[Jim Currie]

OK, then the rockets seen at 3:20am in the SSW came from some other mysterious vessel. Maybe it was Lord's yellow funneled boat seen around 5am to the SW about 8 miles off?

I'll answer that in the belief that you are being serious.

OK, then the rockets seen at 3:20am in the SSW came from some other mysterious vessel. Maybe it was Lord's yellow funneled boat seen around 5am to the SW about 8 miles off?

Again, read the evidence without prejudice -try and fill the man's sea boots.

Gibson told Stone that he saw a signal on the horizon at 3-20 am.. it was about 2 points before the beam then on the beam. No one took a compass bearing of it...just a relative one.
Stone wrote:
" we were heading about W.N.W. Mr. Stewart then took over the Watch."
If, as Stone said, Californian was heading WNW at 4 am, and swinging right at about a degree a minute until the wind rose appreciably after 3-30 am, then she would have been heading about W x S at 3-20 am and her beam would have been pointing roughly SSE.
What was it Stone wrote? Ah yes!
" 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."
So where did the SSW come from? What did Stone tell Stewart? Ah yes!!
"I gave him a full report of what I had seen and my reports and replies from you, and pointed out where I thought I had observed these faint lights at 3:20."
Note that he pointed out where he saw the lights relative to the ship's bow and he saw them abeam. Since the bow was heading WNW at that time, beam was pointing SSW.
I suggest to you that Stone worked out his bearings in retrospect and simply forgot that his ship was still swinging right after 3-30 am.

I didn't make the foregoing up Sam nor did I jump to conclusions. I simply asked myself how a man of Stone's experience, or any officer so qualified, could have arrived at his bearings. More to the point, it is inconceivable that Stone made up an elaborate story- one which bore no relationship to Titanic at the time it was written.
Show me a man who has never made a mistake, and I'll show you a liar.

 

[Julian Atkins]

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?

Jim,

I think you are being unduly provocative here in your above post.

You have selectively homed in on bits of the British Inquiry testimony later on of Gibson when I consider he was suffering from witness fatigue that I have previously mentioned many times.

I've seen this happen many times in Court.

Had Captain Lord disclosed to the British Inquiry the 18th April statements of Stone and Gibson we might have had a quite different set of testimonies from both.

Those statements are the earliest contemporaneous accounts.

It does seem to me to be somewhat peculiar to hone in on discrepancies in Gibson's testimony towards the end of his British Inquiry testimony and when the British Inquiry in any event attached little weight to the Carpathia firing off distress rockets in any event.

(Some of us can appreciate the import and significance of this testimony, although Gibson made some quite explainable errors over the timings. That is quite understandable in my opinion and experience of such matters in Court).

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Samuel Halpern]

More to the point, it is inconceivable that Stone made up an elaborate story- one which bore no relationship to Titanic at the time it was written.

Yes, it is quite an elaborate story that Stone came up with.
-Rockets going only as high as 1/2 the masthead light,
-the bearing of these low-lying rockets following the bearing of the steamer as it steamed away fast to the SW,
-the changing of bearings starting with the 2nd rocket, yet (via Gibson) the red nav light was seen until after the 7th rocket,
-saying that he told Lord about seeing rockets coming after he saw the 5th one, yet telling Gibson it was after the 2nd rocket when he informed Lord.
I could go on, but unless you have something really new to add, I see no reason to continue since all of this has been talked about before.

 

[Jim Currie]

Jim,

I think you are being unduly provocative here in your above post.

You have selectively homed in on bits of the British Inquiry testimony later on of Gibson when I consider he was suffering from witness fatigue that I have previously mentioned many times.

I've seen this happen many times in Court.

Had Captain Lord disclosed to the British Inquiry the 18th April statements of Stone and Gibson we might have had a quite different set of testimonies from both.

Those statements are the earliest contemporaneous accounts.

It does seem to me to be somewhat peculiar to hone in on discrepancies in Gibson's testimony towards the end of his British Inquiry testimony and when the British Inquiry in any event attached little weight to the Carpathia firing off distress rockets in any event.

(Some of us can appreciate the import and significance of this testimony, although Gibson made some quite explainable errors over the timings. That is quite understandable in my opinion and experience of such matters in Court).

Cheers,

Julian

You are spot-on, Julian.

This thread is asking a specific question. In developing an answer, I requested a strait-forward answer to a simple question, which if answered in simple terms, would have, in turn, provided an answer to the said specific question regarding relative visibility. I did not get it.

As a lawyer, you of all people will understand that a convoluted "round-the-houses" answer is
usually indicative of an inability, or unwillingness to provide an answer. If it is unwillingness,then the witness being questioned has a reason for answering in such a way and that reason is for self-protection or the protection of others.

The obvious reason why the "the British Inquiry in any event attached little weight to the Carpathia firing off distress rockets in any event." was because if they had done as I have done, and analised in depth, they would have had to accept Captain Lord's navigation and have had to have looked for another scape-goat.
By the same token all others since then who have bent, twisted, inovated and invented to maintain the status quo would require to swallow their pride and admit error, and we can't have that now, can we?

Do you, as a lawyer, accept the concept of witness fatigue as an excuse for attempting to pervert the course of justice? If so, what a gift to an on-the-ball crooked defendent. Or do you accept the practice of creating confusion in the mind of a simple, scared , honest young man?
Keep safe.

 

[Jim Currie]

Yes, it is quite an elaborate story that Stone came up with.
-Rockets going only as high as 1/2 the masthead light,
-the bearing of these low-lying rockets following the bearing of the steamer as it steamed away fast to the SW,
-the changing of bearings starting with the 2nd rocket, yet (via Gibson) the red nav light was seen until after the 7th rocket,
-saying that he told Lord about seeing rockets coming after he saw the 5th one, yet telling Gibson it was after the 2nd rocket when he informed Lord.
I could go on, but unless you have something really new to add, I see no reason to continue since all of this has been talked about before.

Just answer my first question without waffle, Sam... you know the one I mean...the one about the flash, rocket, firework or whatever being right on the observer's horizon.
As I pointed out to Julian, a long-winded round-the -houses, super science or whatever, answer is not necessary and there usually is a reason for it. Since I am a professional, and those describing the event were also professionals, there is no reason for it in this case. So just a simple acknowledgement of the sighting of Carpathia's signals being on the observer's horizon will do.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

As a lawyer, you of all people will understand that a convoluted "round-the-houses" answer is
usually indicative of an inability, or unwillingness to provide an answer. If it is unwillingness, then the witness being questioned has a reason for answering in such a way and that reason is for self-protection or the protection of others.

OK,

6934-5. If it was not a company’s signal, must it not have been a distress signal?
The simple answer could have been a Yes or a No, but the round-the-house answer was: "If it had been a distress signal the officer on watch would have told me."

6936. I say, if it was not a company’s signal, must it not have been a distress signal?
Again, the simple could have been a Yes or a No, but the round-the-house answer was: "Well, I do not know of any other signals but distress signals that are used at sea."

6937. You do not expect at sea, where you were, to see a rocket unless it is a distress signal, do you?
Again a round-the-house answer: "We sometimes get these company’s signals which resemble rockets; they do not shoot as high and they do not explode."

Finally, a little later on:

6944. Then if it was not that [a company signal], it might have been a distress signal?
- "It might have been."

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Gibson's recollections do not make sense.

So I guess we should throw out everything he said or wrote about what took place that night, or just those recollections that don't fit within your narrative? If you don't throw it all out, then you are being selective like everyone else, are you not?

 

[Julian Atkins]

You are spot-on, Julian.

This thread is asking a specific question. In developing an answer, I requested a strait-forward answer to a simple question, which if answered in simple terms, would have, in turn, provided an answer to the said specific question regarding relative visibility. I did not get it.

As a lawyer, you of all people will understand that a convoluted "round-the-houses" answer is
usually indicative of an inability, or unwillingness to provide an answer. If it is unwillingness,then the witness being questioned has a reason for answering in such a way and that reason is for self-protection or the protection of others.

The obvious reason why the "the British Inquiry in any event attached little weight to the Carpathia firing off distress rockets in any event." was because if they had done as I have done, and analised in depth, they would have had to accept Captain Lord's navigation and have had to have looked for another scape-goat.
By the same token all others since then who have bent, twisted, inovated and invented to maintain the status quo would require to swallow their pride and admit error, and we can't have that now, can we?

Do you, as a lawyer, accept the concept of witness fatigue as an excuse for attempting to pervert the course of justice? If so, what a gift to an on-the-ball crooked defendent. Or do you accept the practice of creating confusion in the mind of a simple, scared , honest young man?
Keep safe.

Hi Jim,

Apologies for quoting your whole reply for me, but my answer is very brief and I consider answers what I interpret as a part of the substance of your reply...

If Gibson "trips up" on a timing in the later stage of his British Inquiry testimony, that is not evidence of perjury.

We can now assess this as an error and inconsequential as we have the earliest contemporaneous 18th April 1912 statements of Stone and Gibson that were not disclosed to either Inquiries.

I think that deals with the point I was making.

It is also obvious from the Marconi PVs the time that Carpathia started firing distress rockets. These corroborate Stone and Gibson's 18th April statements.

(The Marconi PV evidence also rather throws a coach and horses through much of the timings in documents prepared by Captain Rostron!)

 

[Jim Currie]

OK,

6934-5. If it was not a company’s signal, must it not have been a distress signal?
The simple answer could have been a Yes or a No, but the round-the-house answer was: "If it had been a distress signal the officer on watch would have told me."

6936. I say, if it was not a company’s signal, must it not have been a distress signal?
Again, the simple could have been a Yes or a No, but the round-the-house answer was: "Well, I do not know of any other signals but distress signals that are used at sea."

6937. You do not expect at sea, where you were, to see a rocket unless it is a distress signal, do you?
Again a round-the-house answer: "We sometimes get these company’s signals which resemble rockets; they do not shoot as high and they do not explode."

Finally, a little later on:

6944. Then if it was not that [a company signal], it might have been a distress signal?
- "It might have been."

The Officer of the Watch did not tell him it was a distress signal because it did not look like a distress signal should have looked like.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is more than likely to be a duck. But in this case, our friend "Donald" was conspicuous by his absence.
The interrogator used the word "must" as if there could not be any other explanation. As usual, the Brits thought only British Companys used recognition rockets at sea.
You point out two of the major faults of the UK Inquiry and these were leading the witness and badgering. Every question in your quotes emphasized the word "distress" i.e.The power of suggestion. These are the same questioners who use the dismissal expressions of "never mind that", and "never mind official" also conveniently ignore Stone's remark concerning moving vessels v. distress signals and vessels which alter their bearings.

Then finally that last silly question which used the word
"Might". This was asked of a person who had not seen the signal or any signals and presumably designed to suggest that the witness should have gone and looked for himself. However, that is 100% daft. Why go and look for something that may never happen again?

 

[Jim Currie]

Hi Jim,

Apologies for quoting your whole reply for me, but my answer is very brief and I consider answers what I interpret as a part of the substance of your reply...

If Gibson "trips up" on a timing in the later stage of his British Inquiry testimony, that is not evidence of perjury.

We can now assess this as an error and inconsequential as we have the earliest contemporaneous 18th April 1912 statements of Stone and Gibson that were not disclosed to either Inquiries.

I think that deals with the point I was making.

It is also obvious from the Marconi PVs the time that Carpathia started firing distress rockets. These corroborate Stone and Gibson's 18th April statements.

(The Marconi PV evidence also rather throws a coach and horses through much of the timings in documents prepared by Captain Rostron!)

I am firmly of the belief that the Marconi records were doctored or "lost". I cannot for a single moment believe that the Operator on Carpathia did not keep a record. The excuse was that he was too busy... too busy doing what? The PV of Cape Race was destroyed in a mysterious fire and but for Captain Moore of the Mount Temple stuffing wireless messages in his pocket, we would never have heard of Captain Smith's distress position.
As for Gibson's times? I suspect he got a little mixed up with the two sts of three sightings. in addition, I think he had a different altered time on his watch.