William M Murdoch What Happened


Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
60
308
G'day the Kez and Dave - Given the number of people who are willing to 'play along' with Gardiner and Pellegrino, it seems that unfortunately for some the facts are just never good or dramatic enough. The fact that this fraud was put down so fast in the beginning because researchers were able to take a critical look at it is a hopeful sign, but its re-emergence, Phoenix-like, from the dustbin of internet history, gives one pause for thought. Short lived, thankfully. It rose from the grave, it lumbered around briefly causing a bit of destructive havoc, it was despatched with some rapidity. RIP. Because, as Kez says, when looked at coldly it's a particularly nasty little nest of vipers indeed.

Well it's good to see a bit of your sense of humor! I like it! Show some more of it, Inger! Show some more!

Nah - if I do it too often it compromises my hard-line, keyboard warrior credentials. Plus it's tiring. I had to retire to bed with smelling salts for half an hour after I wrote the last line of my previous post
wink.gif
 
Jan 21, 2001
144
1
171
Hi Tracy:

My deepest apologies. Of course, I should have scrolled up to check the spelling. No offense, intended, and I hope we can still be friends on here.

Hi Teri:

I will be glad to meet you locally, and/or at one of the LA Queen Mary gatherings. I haven't been to see that gang in ages, so it would be fun to catch up with everybody again. I will follow up with a private email to you; I have some materials that I think you will find interesting.

Hi Inger:

Good points about Gardiner, Pelligrino. I suppose I would add Bristow, Harrison & Padfield to my list. Look at how quickly the red & green rockets idea took hold in recent years. Amazing how simple it is to revise history.

Ya know, come to think of it... I never liked the outcome of the Salem witchcraft hearings, and I have a fairly free weekend coming up. Maybe after mowing the lawn, I can finally get around to re-writing some of the trial documents. Some of them witches got off too easy. ;-)

Dave Billnitzer
Altadena, CA
 
J

Jordan Wyatt McGlothlin

Guest
Hi Jordan,

Hi everyone just wanted to let you know that I am back. I was off of here because of computer failure. In case you don't know me I am Jordan McGlothlin. Brandons neighbor and friend. Keep up the posts.

Regards
-J.M.
 

Tracy Smith

Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,646
6
121
South Carolina USA
With all due respect, just because an author takes a contrary position to one's own, does not necessarily mean that they can be casually dismissed and grouped with people such as Gardiner and Pellegrino. I agree with very little that Leslie Reade wrote in his book "The Ship That Stood Still", but I do not deny that it is an important, well-written book. And parts of it have been useful to me, especially Reade's insights into the personality of Second Officer Stone.

Peter Padfield is a well-respected author of numerous books on military history, nautical history, and biography. To group him with Gardiner and Pellegrino is laughable. To learn more about Padfield and his accomplishments visit this website:

http://www.guypadfield.com/ppadfield/main.html

Leslie Harrison spent most of the last half of his life devoted to defending Captain Lord, from the time Captain Lord sought his help in 1958 until his own death in 1997. It would have been easy for Harrison to walk away from this issue after Stanley Lord died in 1962, but instead, he spent the rest of his life working on exonerating Captain Lord. When asked by author Patrick Stenson why did he continue to defend a man long dead over something that happened so long ago, Harrison replied, "Because I gave him my word." For even those who disagree with Harrison's conclusions about the Californian incident, he deserved the utmost respect for his loyalty. We all should have friends so loyal to us, as Leslie Harrison was to Stanley Lord.

I don't agree with everything that Diana Bristow has written, but she has done extensive original research and has come up with fresh ideas that inspire us all to think and look at things in a new light, even if some do not draw the same conclusions as she did. And she has the courage of her convictions to commit her ideas, even the controversial ones, to print. For that she deserves respect. Diana has also been a good friend to me as well.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
11
221
Way back upstream somewhere, regarding my "Shots in the Dark" site ( http://home.att.net/~wormstedt/titanic/shots.html ), it was pointed out to me that the site claimed that Victor Sunderland had said Lightoller was not on the starboard side of the ship during the final stages, and therefore could not have seen Murdoch at the end. However, the original newsarticle had said Sunderland WAS on the starboard side!

After checking the original newsarticle, and discussing a possible re-write with Tad Fitch, co-author of the site, we decided to remove the whole reference as it relates to Lightoller. We could argue discrepencies between Lightoller's and Sunderland's account, but to little point. Sunderland does agree that Lightoller was on the port side.

Sunderland's newsarticle is available thru a link on my site, down in the Victor Sunderland section.
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
11
0
Hi, Bill!

> Sunderland does agree that Lightoller was on the >port side.

To clear up any confusion that the above statement might create, Sunderland said that Lightoller 'started out' on the starboard side but that he *wound up* jumping off the port side; it was the latter point that disagrees with Lightoller's testimony and calls into question the amount of time Lightoller had to make accurate observations on the starboard side.

All my best,

George
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
60
308
Hallo Bill -

I think you've probably taken the wisest course, as this could be argued back and forth. As you've got the account on your site, people can read it and draw their own conclusions.

George - Yah, he does say that Lightoller jumped from the port side. But the point of contention, used to attempt to discredit Lightoller's claim to have seen Murdoch working on collasible 'B', was not used accurately. Sunderland has them working on A up to the point when the ship took a plunge. As you know, the boat deck and the roof of the officer's quarters were not flooded simultaneously. Gracie was even able to use the force of the wave to propel himself up onto the roof of the officer's house. Lightoller thought he was towards the middle or starboard side when he jumped, Sunderland said he was on the port side. That discrepency doesn't affect the point that their accounts agree that that they were on the starboard side up until the boat deck was overwhelmed, which means that Lightoller was in a position to see what he claimed to have seen at A.

~ Inger
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
11
221
And I see I said: "Sunderland does agree that Lightoller was on the port side."

What I meant to say was "Sunderland does agree that Lightoller was on the *starboard* side." (before Lightoller jumped off the port side of the ship)

Geez, I need to type better!
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
79
0
I'm sure Sunderland had the best of intentions and knew Lightoller's actions better than Lightoller himself. Plus, there was plenty of time and light to see things by.

Parks
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
11
221
Charmaine - the new link 'died' along with Excite@home over the weekend!

Luckily, I still have a secondary account to use to connect to the internet. I will be moving the Shots site over to AT&T Worldnet sometime this week, as soon as I can find the free time to do it!
 
May 8, 2001
1,359
13
221
Hello Bill Wormstedt. I have never been on your site until tonight, but would like to say that it was exceptionally written, and well researched. When I am not bleary eyed, I will go back and read it some more! Thanks for posting the URL. Colleen
 

Charmaine Sia

Member
Nov 25, 2001
135
2
173
Bill,

Having read the information on your site, I would firstly like to say that it was very well written and researched, and also has almost flawless connection (considering how different the accounts were).

I would like to raise the matter of the confusion of the Chief Officer. While I realise that my question is very subjective, I would just like to find out a couple of opinions on the matter.

How probable do you think it is that because a lot of people thought Murdoch was the Chief Officer, only to find out later that he was the First Officer, they decided that they might have been mixed up over the person they remembered as "Chief Officer", and thus changed what they had originally thought because of that?

To illustrate an example, if I didn't know the names of the officers at first, just their rank (but might have been mixed up between Wilde and Murdoch), and I remembered the Chief Officer doing something, then realised during the inquiry who the actual Chief Officer was, as well as found out the names, perhaps I might have changed to referring to them by their names instead for convenience, but in the process mixed the 2 up, whether by a real accident or "on purpose". Would this be a possible scenario?

Just curious, would be thankful for opinions.

Charmaine
 
C

Cassandra Crowther

Guest
My "Take" on this whole thing is that no one knows-- or will ever know-- whether or not Murdoch took his life that night. That's the unfortunate truth of the matter.
 
M

Max Nikulin

Guest
I agree with you Cassandra.
But ,alas! Some people do not
want to drop this discussion
sad.gif


And-when it comes to Mr Murdoch -
(at least it was) they prefer to
argue about him as 'shooting himself'

I myself am thinking that he didn't
shoot himself -that's my position.
And talking about Capn. Smith and
Mr Wilde -I suggest that one of
those gentlemen sot himself.

Best Regards !
Maxim A. Nikulin
 
C

Cassandra Crowther

Guest
Murdoch didn't shoot himself, but maybe Capt. Smith or Chief Wilde did the deed. Hmmm. Could be. I think it all boils down to what did people see that night-- conflicting accounts-- which brings us back to "Well we'll never know for sure."

I don't know who might or might not have shot himself that night, but I honestly think that there are better controversies out there to chew over than the "Murdoch suicide scenario". Just one woman's opinion here.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads