Why were Asplunds separated

G

George Behe (Georgeb)

Guest
>The main reason is that Mrs. H. claimed that >eight men were hauled into
>her boat, two of whom later died.

No, the *reporter* claimed that Mrs. H. said that. There's a big difference.

>This never happened at boat #10, and
>how would Mrs. H. have known such a thing if she >wasn't in boat #4?

The same way so many other stories became widely known -- through gossip on board the Carpathia.

Although there is a certain amount of evidence which suggests that boat #10 might have been launched before #12, #14 and #16, there is better evidence that shows it was launched *after* those three boats. Please refer to the revised launch chart that Bill Wormstedt, Tad Fitch and I have researched and posted on the web, as well as the launch chart in Paul Quinn's new book. Both of these charts utilize the evidence I refer to and agree that #10 was launched last. Mrs. Hamalainen's statement about being in boat #10 conforms perfectly with the evidence in question.

The long-accepted launch chart published by the Senate Inquiry (and which you seem to be relying on) contains *major* errors. Perhaps Bill, Tad or Paul will be willing to discuss the subject with you if their schedules permit.
 
Apr 16, 2001
441
1
148
Dear George,

How do you know the reporter wrote those words from Mrs. H.'s interview in the Detroit News Tribune? Source? She is quoted directly. For that matter, what proof do you have that the interviews attributed to her in the other Detroit paper and Ontario paper were made by her? Surely a reporter would be capable of doing the same thing in the interviews you supplied - thus, where's the proof that your interviews are genuine?

Miss Gretchen Longley, in a privately printed memoir, wrote that she and her aunts couldn't get into boat #8 because they thought it was too crowded. Instead, they turned around and walked aft to the first boat that was loading. It turned out to be #10 and she stated the boat number. She also said that there were few people in the boat at that time and that they could have waited even longer "to enter the other boats being made ready for launching." She didn't want to leave the ship but her aunt Kornelia was nervous and felt they should obey orders and leave as soon as possible.

Miss Longley also said that "when the other boats touched the water 'after ours', we were quickly tied together.'

Boat #10 was not the last boat to leave on the port side. I am also not following the Senate launch chart. Boat #14 was the last of the four aft portside boats to depart (the Senate report claims #16) Actually, the boat followed #16 by a few minutes.

I appreciate your trying to attempting to debate the report based on your interviews, but one has to look at the whole picture to understand the situation. You are entitled to your opinion, but the evidence is pretty substantial to dispute the possiblity of Mrs. H. being in boat #10.

I would suggest that we terminate this on-going discussion since we will never agree. I will not be responding to any further discussion regarding this matter. Thanks for your efforts.

As I will not be back until after the New Year, my best wishes to all of you!

Michael Findlay
 
G

George Behe (Georgeb)

Guest
>How do you know the reporter wrote those words >from Mrs. H.'s >interview in the Detroit News Tribune? Source? She is quoted >directly.

Well, I've also seen plenty of newspaper interviews in which other passengers (who were supposedly quoted directly) said that they saw Captain Smith shoot himself in the head etc. etc. Just because a reporter claimed that a passenger said these things doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

>For that matter, what proof do you have that the >interviews attributed >to her in the other Detroit >paper and Ontario paper were made by >her?

Exactly. You've just made my point for me. Even though it's unlikely that two different reporters in two different countries misquoted Mrs. H. about her presence in lifeboat #10, I don't know that Mrs. H. was quoted accurately in my two sources any more than you know she was quoted accurately in your source. Therefore, when it comes to making dogmatic pronouncements about which lifeboat she was in, it would seem prudent for us to remember Voltaire's quote: "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one."

>Miss Longley also said that "when the other boats touched the water
>'after ours', we were quickly tied together.'
>Boat #10 was not the last boat to leave on the port side. I am also not
>following the Senate launch chart. Boat #14 was the last of the four aft
>portside boats to depart (the Senate report claims #16) Actually, the
>boat followed #16 by a few minutes.

You're correct in saying that #16 was launched before #14, but your statement that #14 was the last boat lowered does not hold up to close scrutiny. Poigndestre testified that he saw #14 lowered away and that he then returned to boat #12 (which was still unlaunched.) Evans testified that he loaded #12 with passengers, lowered #12 away, and then went to boat #10. Buley confirmed that Evans lowered #12 to the water and that he then came over and got into to #10. Buley specified that #12 was the last boat to be lowered away before #10 was launched. (In my opinion, Buley and Evans were much more likely to know which boats they launched and the order in which they launched them than was Miss Longley, a mere passenger.) At any rate, when we join all of this data together we arrive at a launch order of #16 first, then #14, then #12 and then #10. Mrs. Hamalainen said that the lifeboat she was in -- boat #10 -- was the last boat launched, and the evidence seems to confirm the truth of her statement.

>You are entitled to your opinion, but the evidence is
>pretty substantial to dispute the possiblity of Mrs. H. being in boat
>#10.

IMO, the evidence I've just presented counters that statement pretty effectively.

>I would suggest that we terminate this on-going discussion since we will
>never agree.

I second the motion.

>I will not be responding to any further discussion
>regarding this matter. Thanks for your efforts.

And thanks for yours. However, it was never my intention to try and change your opinion -- I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of basing dogmatic conclusions upon a limited amount of information; familiarity with a broader spectrum of evidence can oftentimes completely disrupt such conclusions.
 
M

Mark Bray

Guest
This question is to Michael Findlay, I have tried to contact Miss Lillian Asplund by letter. I know it could be hard for her to write, so what do you think about me calling her? I really always wanted to meet a survivor, but if I could just talk I would be so very happy. Please help........
Mark Mark125689@aol.com
 
Apr 16, 2001
441
1
148
Dear Mark,

I would respectfully ask that you not contact Miss Asplund regarding her memories of the Titanic disaster. She prefers to remain silent on the subject of the sinking owing to the loss of her father and three brothers. She still retains painful memories of the sinking and very well remembers the family's tragic separation on the Titanic's deck.

Sincerely,

Michael Findlay
 
M

mark bray

Guest
Michael,

Not to sound disrespectful but why did you contact her?
 
Apr 16, 2001
441
1
148
Dear Mark,

I contacted Miss Asplund back in 1986 for the first time. She was very kind to me but I could tell that she did not like to discuss the Titanic. I had no idea what her thoughts were at the time I first contacted her. A member of her family in Sweden wrote to me and explained that her brother Felix did not mind speaking of the disaster because he had no memories of it. He died in 1983. When I approached Lillian, I discovered a kind and soft-spoken woman. However, it was very obvious that she had lived with the Titanic for her entire life, and she disliked to be reminded of it. I was only a student when I spoke with her so I believe she felt comfortable telling me what little she could remember about the night the Titanic went down. She told me that she had received phone calls from Don Lynch and a few other historians earlier, but she would not speak to any of them because she was afraid of being exploited.

I never kept up a correspondence with her. I was told that after the James Cameron movie was released, many attempts were made to contact her by complete strangers. Family and friends guarded her privacy and Lillian herself asked to be left alone in a newspaper interview in 1998.

If you wish to telephone her, that is entirely up to you. I was only suggesting that it might upset her to be contacted directly. You did ask what I thought about your contacting her in your first post to the message board. I said that I didn't think it would be a good idea. Out of respect for the woman (who is now 93-years-old), I thought you would understand.

Sincerely,

Michael Findlay
 
M

MARK BRAY

Guest
MICHAEL,

I HOPE YOU DO NOT THINK I WAS GETTING ANGRY WITH YOU. WELL, I WAS NOT, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHY YOU CONTACTED HER. I KNOW SHE IS OLDER NOW AND I TAKE YOUR ADVICE TO HEART AND THANKS FOR IT. NOW I UNDERSTAND MORE.THANKS

MARK
 

Stephanie

Member
Apr 19, 2011
5
0
31
I was just wondering whether anyone knew why Carl Edgar Asplund was not placed into the life boat along with his mother, twin sister and younger brother?

Thanks for any help on this matter.

[Moderator's note: This message, originally a separate thread in a different topic, has been moved to this pre-existing thread discussing the same subject. MAB]
 
T

Talira Greycrest

Guest
The oldest child, Felix, was 13 and (unless I'm wrong) as soon as boys hit their teenage years, they were considered to be men. However, there's no reason why 5-year-old Carl and 9-year-old Clarence should not have been put in that lifeboat with their mother and siblings. OK, they would have lost their father and older brother, but at least they wouldn't have lost their own lives.