Wonder About a Designated Navigator

[Doug Criner]

It seems that it was was not the custom in the early 20th Century for ships to have a designated navigator. For example, I've read that aboard Titanic, the more senior deck officer on watch would take star shots, and turn the data over to a junior officer to work out the fix. And then, if the watch changed before that officer worked out the fix, he would palm it off to his relief.

And, time correction for star sights seems to have been conducted with perhaps less than rigorous formality.

These practices seem, to me, to invite the possibility of mistakes.

Now, I learned celestial navigation in the navy, almost 50 years ago, and haven't practiced it since. I've been referred to (here) as an "armchair navigator," which I guess is true. (Actually, the "armchair" part I accept - at my age, everything is "armchair." But to call me an armchair "navigator," I take as almost a compliment!)

Now, I shall defend myself somewhat. I have used a sextant, taken star sights, and worked out celestial positions. I own a sextant and I think I could use one accurately today (might need a little help identifying stars).

I've recently leafed through my copy of Dutton's, and it's all pretty familiar to me. But I couldn't pass a test on it.

My only experience is in the U.S. Navy. I'm mindful of the current introduction to Dutton's that suggests merchant marine navigators often are more skilled than navy navigators. Navy navigators, according to Dutton's, can partially make up for it by training, following strict procedures, and discipline.

And, I might add, a dedicated ship's navigator (with no watch-standing assignments) and an experienced quartermaster as his assistant.

More to follow.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>These practices seem, to me, to invite the possibility of mistakes.<<

While I wouldn't disagree with that, I would suggest that with the merchent marine, it wasn't always essential to know down to the last foot exactly where they were. Even so, they didn't do badly using little more then pen, paper, tables, manual sightings and good old fashioned skull sweat.

 

[Doug Criner]

"Even so, they didn't do badly using little more then pen, paper, tables, manual sightings and good old fashioned skull sweat."

Well, 50 years ago, that's about we had including "manual sightings." But we weren't 20 miles away from our actual location, either.

Knowing your exact location wasn't critical then or now - until it is critical. In my time (long ago) knowing the ship's current position was always very important - even if out in the middle of the ocean.

But, my point is that my navigational experience does NOT match common practice in 1912. So be it.

Hold your fire. More to come.

 

[Paul Slish]

Sam

I think I've made it clear on this board before that I think the evidence overall points to the Titanic bearing about south by compass (180 degrees), and thus about SSE true (157.5 degrees) from the stopped Californian. If Californian was at 50.07 W longitude that puts her about the 19 miles away that Captain Lord estimated.

I have at least four lines of reasoning from the evidence that lead me to this conclusion. Perhaps on a thread more dedicated to that topic I will write them all up.

Captain Lord only repeated what he had been told about the nearby ship bearing SSE by compass or about SE true.

I find Groves a terribly unreliable witness. Groves had been at sea for six years and I believe held a second officer's certificate. I will give a few examples.

First let's look at the heading of the Californian when she stopped. Captain Lord (6 years as a captain, and a total of 21.5 years at sea) testified when Californian finally stopped after altering her helm and changing her engine to full astern she was heading ENE by compass or about NE true (45 degrees).

Now Lord, Stone, and Groves all agree that Californian was slowly swinging to starboard. That means her bows would gradually be swinging towards he south.

Groves testifies that about 11:10 p.m. he sights the light of a vessel. He testifies Californian is heading NE by compass at this time. That means Californian has supposedly swung two points (22.5 degrees) to PORT in the 50 minutes since she stopped. That not only contradicts what Lord and Stone testified, but what Groves himself testified, all of them speaking of a swing to starboard.

Then at 12:10 a.m Groves testifies the Californian is heading ENE. So now he has the swing to starboard. Now the heading of the Californian (so says Groves) is the same as it was one hour and 50 minutes ago when she stopped according to Captain Lord. She hasn't swung to starboard at all.

I find Groves completely unbelievable as to the Californian's heading.

I believe Stone heard Groves say it and had a mental lapse when he agreed with it (heading ENE at 12:10 a.m.).

Let's look at another part of Groves' testimony. He claims when he first sights this ship she is 3 or 3.5 points abaft the beam of the Californian. He claims Californian is heading NE. Attorney Dunlop walks him through it and Groves agrees the other ship was bearing about south by east (169) (actually Groves says west) or south 1/2 east (174.5).

Now this supposed Titanic steams almost due west for 30 minutes and stops. Her bearing thus won't change from 11:40 p.m. when she stops until Groves leaves the bridge at 12:10 a.m. What is her bearing now according to Groves? She is abeam and thus SSE (157).

Interesting. A ship steams west for 30 minutes at 22 knots and ends up of EAST of where she started. Either it is not the Titanic or Groves is hopelessly confused.

And I'm supposed to bank the whole Californian bearing to Titanic on this man?

But let's go a little further. Groves has an exchange with Dunlop about what sidelight he should see on a westbound ship that is to the south of him. An attorney ends up correcting the third officer

Read it for yourself.

"8465. Before the vessel which you saw stopped, on what course did she seem to you to be steering? - Do you mean the steamer I had seen at 11.40?

8466. Yes, before she stopped at 11.40 you had had her under observation for some time, noticing her movements? - Yes, but I took no notice of the course she was making except that she was coming up obliquely to us.

8467. Was she making to the westward or to the eastward? - She would be bound to be going to westward.

8468. Was she? - She was bound to.

8469. Did you see her going to westward? - Well, I saw her red light.

8470. If she was going to the westward and was to the southward of you, you ought to have seen her green light? - Not necessarily.

8471. Just follow me for a moment. She is coming up on your starboard quarter, you told us? - On our starboard quarter.

8472. Heading to the westward? - I did not say she was heading to the westward.

8473. Proceeding to the westward? - Yes.

8474. And she is to the southward of you? - She is to the southward of us.

8475. Then the side nearest to you must have been her starboard side, must it not? - Not necessarily. If she is going anything from N. to W. you would see her port side. At the time I left the bridge we were heading E.N.E. by compass.

8476. Never mind about your heading. I am only dealing with her bearings. She is bearing S.S.E. of you - south-easterly? - About south.

8477. She is south of you and apparently proceeding to the westward? - Yes, some course to the westward.

8478. Does it follow from that that the side which she was showing to you at that time must have been her starboard side? - No it does not follow at all. If she is steering a direct west course, yes.

8479. Did you see her green light at all? - Never."

If she was to the south and on any kind of westerly type course he would see a green starboard light. Again Groves is confused.

In summary I have little confidence in Groves at this point in his career.

Stone had been at sea eight years, held a first mate's certificate and was better in his observations. Yes I do think he made some errors. I believe he mistakenly followed Groves on that one point. But I have confidence his later compass bearings which he carefully took to obey Captain Lord's orders were correct. The nearby ship steamed away to the westward. Gibson confirmed Stone was taking bearings of her all the time.

So hopefully I will write up my four reasons for why Titanic bore about south by compass , or SSE (157 true) from Californian another day.

Yes I discount Groves on many points and Stone on a couple.

But I agree with Captain Smith, 2nd Officer Lightoller, 4th Officer Boxhall, and 5th Officer Lowe on the distance of their nearby ship from the Titanic: about 5 miles and certainly not the Californian. All very experienced men with Captain's certificates.

And by the way, Lightoller definitely considered the ship he saw a steamer. He wrote to Captain Lord, "With regard to the steamer seen - I saw a light about two points on the port bow & could not say whether it was one or two masthead lights or stern light - but it seemed there about 5 or 6 miles away."

You discount all these men.

Pittman's eyesight was declining and he soon transferred to the purser's department. I think we can discard his two miles distance to a ship.

I also agree with Captain Lord and Chief Officer Stewart. If Stewart's Polaris sight yielding a latitude of 42.05 N (in 1959 Lord was more specific and said 42.05.30 N) was accurate, then Californian did not stop 3 hours later at 41.56 N. Lord said she was on a course of S 89 W true (269 degrees) and she would have come down south about a half-mile in 3 hours steaming at 11 knots.

Thus Californian was no 12 miles off from the Titanic. I agree with Stewart.

You accuse Stewart of either perjury (he never took the sight or falsified it) or incompetence. He held a master's certificate, had been at sea for many years, and was soon promoted to captain by the Leyland Line, where he served in command successfully for many years.

So I agree with many master mariners. You discount them all, and agree with a third officer, an apprentice, and on one point with a second officer but discount the rest of his testimony.

There is not a whole lot more I can write. I've given my view. I disagree with you and hopefully in a friendly manner.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>I believe Stone heard Groves say it and had a mental lapse when he agreed with it. <<

I don't think that at all. I think they both were extremely clear as to bearing they took at 12:10.

As far as seeing a red sidelight, there really is no problem with that. As Grove pointed out, "If she is steering a direct west course, yes" she would show a green sidelight. But she was coming up obliquely. Anything between NW and N true she would show a red. And she would be coming up on the starboard quarter the way Californian was pointing.

As far as being driven southward by current, I've been researching more into search and rescue operations and drift models that are used in developing search areas. Interesting stuff, but it is now clearer than ever that the wind could not have caused the drift of wreckage that morning. The maximum drift due to windage can be quantified. It is much smaller than what I was even allowing for. The MAIB was right when then attributed the southward drift mainly to local current.

I don't have the time either to go into this or other details right now. Let's just end it for now and say that we agree to disagree.

 

[Jim Currie]

" As far as seeing a red sidelight, there really is no problem with that. As Grove pointed out, "If she is steering a direct west course, yes" she would show a green sidelight. But she was coming up obliquely. Anything between NW and N true she would show a red. And she would be coming up on the starboard quarter the way Californian was pointing."

No problem with all of that Sam, but what you omitted from this observation is that Groves was describing a situation that took place between 11 PM and 11-30 PM Californian time when Californian's heading was somewhere in an easterly direction ENE True? If that was so, then Groves' 'Titanic' was approaching Californian from the South or SSW. According to him he saw it at first when it was a long way off - 10 or 12 miles. It got closer without altering it's bearing by very much until it stopped...according to popular theory.. to the S.E. True.

Let's look at this (without prejudice!).

If, as the three musketeers, Groves,Stone and Gibson, agreed that ship stopped bearing S.E. true and it really was Titanic AND Californian was heading E.N.E. then to make all things fit, Titanic HAD to pass due south of Californian, continue west for a bit before swinging to starboard, turning through North to end up heading about NNW. Here's a plot (nearly to scale) of what Groves seemed to be describing:

I put it to you, either there were two 'mystery' vessels - Smith and Groves saw same vessel earlier and kept watching it while Groves ignored it until he saw it coming to ward him on the starboard quarter or Stone was lying in his teeth.

I can almost anticipate your answer. The only think that would make the S.E.Bearing of Titanic fit with Groves' evidence would be that Californian was actually heading North True at just after 11PM. There's no evidence of that or do you have something up your sleeve?

 

[Jim Currie]

"As far as being driven southward by current, I've been researching more into search and rescue operations and drift models that are used in developing search areas. Interesting stuff, but it is now clearer than ever that the wind could not have caused the drift of wreckage that morning. The maximum drift due to windage can be quantified. It is much smaller than what I was even allowing for. The MAIB was right when then attributed the southward drift mainly to local current."

The MAIB inspectors were not right at all. They. like everyone else in this story assumed there was a current. There's more evidence to suggest there was not a current.

If you wish to really look at actual evidence Sam, look here

Additionally, there is some very interesting information in the Encyclopedia Britanica eg:

"As noted from the table, ice fields consisting of 10 percent ice and 90 percent open water will move at 1 to 8 percent of the surface wind velocity."

5% of 18 knots is just under a knot! That would mean that if there had been a 1 knot current as well, the whole lot would have been moving at close to 2 knots by 8pm that morning - really?

As for debris: If you can find it, there's a very interesting table developed by Allen and Plourde published in 1999 - a table of 63 categories of floating debris. This table is used by many SAR teams today. There is evidence that some catagories teted in actual sea conditions can achieve speeds of up to 10% of wind velocity in less than 10 minutes after the wind starts.

Why don't you conduct a few experiments yourself on Lake Michigan. a half filled container might be and idea! I'll share the other half with you some time (as long as it's a good malt!).

Apart from any of the foregoing, you are keeping far too rigid to Lord's latitude of 41-33N.
From other evidence the debris was not concentrated in one spot.

One thing you will find from all of the research is that the maximum leeway made by a floating object can only be quantified if you have the exact profile of that object. Even then, the underwater profile also contributes in the form of 'drag'. Not an exact science Sam!

Before you say it Sam - yes I probably do know better than the individual in or on behalf of the MAIB who came up with these two reports. They had a political axe to grind - I don't. Besides, I have worked with the MAIB and for 25 years did exactly the same work as they did, but for Lloyds Underwriters. So I think I'm qualified enough to comment on their work.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>there's a very interesting table developed by Allen and Plourde published in 1999 <<

I have that plus other tables from their work.
Your 5% of 18 knots example does not work in the situation we are dealing with Jim. It was a flat calm till about 4 AM. The strongest the wind got up to was about a force 2, 4-6 knots. We can easily see that in photos taken from Carpathia. Even if it were stronger, between force 2 and 3, say 7 knots, the most ice would drift down in 8 hours using your 5% number is less than 3 miles.

According to Fig I-1 in Allen and Plourde, the generated wind current for a 7 knot wind would be 0.3 knots. Something like the overturned collapsible boat that was seen in the wreckage would have a leeway multiplier of 0.017 according to Table I-1 using a capsized shallow ballast marine life raft as an example. In a 7 knot wind that translates to a leeway drift speed of only 0.12 knots. Or in 8 hours, is a drift of only about 1 mile. Add that to the wind current and you get a 3.5 mile southward drift on average from the wreck site. The wreckage should have been seen no further south than about 41° 40' N, not 41° 33' N, if the primary cause of movement was due to windage.

 

[Jim Currie]

Sam,

I don't know what pictures or evidence your using.
Here's the real ones with photo interpretation. We have a very good idea of the developing wave length from these pictures. In the kind of wind you're describing, the sea would be very different. No well defined crests or troughs. These pictured describe perfectly how Rostron himself described the wind - a 'Moderate Breeze'. That's 13 to 18 mph

The first picture is Lowe towing a collapsible.
Note he has the mast up but the sail is down. There is no way he could have sailed that heavy boat while towing another heavily loaded one in the way he describes in a 4 to 6 knot wind. These things hardy sailed at all except with the wind abeam or abaft it and blowing at force 4 to 6. Ask anyone who has ever sailed one. Charlie?

The second picture is of No.6 boat. In both these pictures, the sea is very well defined. Look closely and you will see the wind action on the sea surface creating secondary crests between the crests of the well developed main crests. Exactly as sen on the charts supplied by the Met office for a force 4. You can even see the odd crest starting to curl over.

As a matter of interest, if there had been absolutely no current and the wind was as little as you say, Californian would most likely have turned E.N.E. to head for Carpathia when she was at about 42- 40.5'N, 50-05'W at around 8 PM on the 15th April.

If you have ever seen wreckage from a casualty, you will know that invariably it formes a long line if there is any wind at all. It most certainly does not stay together in a neat clump. You can see that from the Tables which show the differing rated due to air profile. The same thing happens when surface current is involved due to underwater profile.

In the case of a force 1 or 2, the crests would be fairly regular, short intervalled and little more than 6".

At 18 MPH, the ice and the debris - including chairs, boats, submerged boats et al would be moving at a rate of 1 knots as I said. I can't see where you get this force 2 figure from. Please explain. These picures most certainly do not show a force 2 - more like how the sea looks like after a force five has declined to a force 4.

 

[Jim Currie]

Don't take my word for it. Here's the official sea-sate pictures that go with the Beaufort Scale. It used to be issued on a cardboard poster by the Met Office to every british ship.

I have taken the liberty of pasting one of the Titanic photographs. Now do you doubt the force of the wind that morning?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

At force 2 wind speed is 4-6 knots, and wave heights from 1/2 to 1 foot. There are small wavelets, short but pronounced, with crests that have glassy appearance and do not break. Wind can be felt on face.

Moderate breeze, force 4, has wind speeds from 11-16 knots and wave heights of 3 to 5 ft. Fairly frequent white caps. You don't see any of this in the photos.

At force 3, there are large wavelets with crests beginning to break. Foam of glassy appearance and a few scattered white caps. Winds are 7 to 10 knots and waves are 2 to 3 ft.

 

[Jim Currie]

For goodness sake Sam - don't you consider that this time, you might just be wrong?

I didn't fake those pictures - that's the way it was and really is! The comparison between the Titanic photographs and the Met. Office samples match too closely to cause any doubt. Have a look at the example for force 2. are you suggesting that there is any similarity between that and the Titanic photographs?

There's an old Scottish saying. I suppose you have the same in the States -

"Don't try and teach your granny to suck eggs"

What I'm trying to point out; as a former auxiliary weather observer on ships running between the UK,New York and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and as an advisor to oil companies regarding wave height criteria for moving oil rigs, I don't think I need reminding of the details of the Beaufort Scale - wind or sea. Do you?

I have little doubt you are a clever man Sam but
obviously you do not understand weather. Let me explain:

When the wind blows at first, depending on how far away the source is and depending on the steepness of the pressure gradient; the sea state either changes very quickly or gradually increases as the wind strength increases. It's a bit more complicated than that but I'll keep it simple.
In the case of a shallow gradient, there is a lag between the speed of the wind and the wave height. Obviously there was a shallow gradient that morning. Here's what Rostron had to say about it:

"Senator SMITH.
I assume that you kept watch to see whether there was any of these people afloat?

Mr. ROSTRON.
Precisely. I was cruising all around the vicinity of the disaster.

Senator SMITH.
How long did you cruise around there?

Mr. ROSTRON.
In the actual vicinity of the disaster?

Senator SMITH.
Yes.

Mr. ROSTRON.
Half an hour.

Senator SMITH.
During that time was there a swirl or any unnatural condition of the sea?

Mr. ROSTRON.
Nothing whatever. The wind and sea were then beginning to get up. There was a moderate breeze blowing then, and a little slop of the sea.

Now I suppose you will say Rostron was 'havering'. However, when a man of the experience that Rostron had described the wind and sea state he did so as a professional - not an amateur. When he said 'moderate breeze' he meant Beaufort Moderate breeze. When he said the wind and sea were 'getting up' he didn't mean wavelets had formed on the sea surface , he meant there was a little bit of a 'sea running' (to use the jargon)

So how does this apply to the case in question?
Easy! The breeze did not start as 'moderate' but by 8 am or thereabouts, the sea had reached a point where it matched the wave criteria for 'moderate'. in other words, the wind was acting strongly on the sea surface long before the waves reached the maximum height relative to fetch and wind strength. (for the less well informed; 'fetch' is the distance over which the wind is blowing i.e. distance from source to receiver). Now lets go back to the pictures you dispute:

Here's the pictures of the survivors in boat No.6
I estimate that the time then was about 7-30 AM.

There is already a clearly defined waves crest just astern of that boat you do not get these in a force 2.
In addition, the height of a wave is measured from trough to crest. The wave we see in the picture is close to 2 ft high - possibly more since the actual trough is about 15 feet ahead of it. The lifeboat and the standing man (Hitchin) gives us reference points.

This incidentally is not a 'wavelet' but an actual wave. Wavelets are formed by the initial wind pressure on the sea. In this photograph, they can be seen between the crests of the bigger 'wave'.

Apart from all this, two distinct, long lines of wreckage consisting of chairs and large amounts of cork were seem from Carpathia when she steamed in a circle looking for more survivors. Classic wind- driven debris pattern.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Jim,

I agree that the wind was picking up and increasing over time. When Rostron said he was cruising around in the actual vicinity of the disaster for 1/2 an hour he was referring to the time that a service was being held on board. That he said was after 8:30. He said while the service was being held he was on the bridge when his ship was being maneuvered around the scene of the wreckage. That is the time that he said that the wind and sea were then BEGINNING to get up as there was a moderate breeze blowing then. This is between about 8:30 and 9:00. He left the area then leaving the Californian to continue the search.

So from Rostron I would say that force 4 conditions had developed shortly before he left the area. I still don't see the evidence of anything greater than a force 3 in the lifeboat photo of boat #6. There certainly are no frequent white caps to be seen. But I would agree that a wave height of about 2 feet looks to be in there.

The attached cropped photo of boats 14 and D suggest an average wavelength of about 2/3 a boat length, or about 20 feet between crests with wave heights perhaps about 1 1/2 ft.

But let's look at this drift issue another way.

You claim there was no current. Fine. That means the wreckage had to drift down by windage. The wind sprang up about 4 am. Say the wreckage was affected by the wind for 8 hours. The wreckage was reported a little over 10 miles south of the now known wreck site when Californian departed. That means that the average southward drift due to windage was 1.25 knots. Now according to the local wind current table in Allen and Plourd, the local wind current is 0.035 the wind force. And for leeway drift, let's take a multiplier of 0.02 for overturned boat B which was seen in the wreckage. That means we can use a total multiplier of 0.055 for the total drift of the overturned boat. With W = the wind force, we have:

0.055 W 8 (hour) = 10 (nautical miles)
or W = 22.7 knots as the average wind speed needed over 8 hours of time.

That means the average wind force had to be close to a force 6 on the Beaufort scale which should have produced 9 foot waves with white foam crests extensive everywhere. Nothing of the sort can be seen in any of the photos.

Now take the 5% value you like to use for drifting ice. As before mentioned, to drift 10 miles south in 8 hours is an average speed of 1.25 knots. That would require a wind force of 1.25/0.05 = 25 knots. Again force 6 on the Beaufort scale is required for 8 hours of time.

There was more than windage moving everything south.

 

[Jim Currie]

Sam:


The wreckage was allegedly in the latitude corresponding to the position (according to Lord) from where, Californian departed at 11-30 AM on the 15th April - 3 hours after having seen wreckage 'near the Carpathia' consisting of deck chairs, cushions, planks several boats and two collapsable boats - not incidentally an overturned, half-sunk one which would most certainly have been the best reference to determine set and/or drift.
Lord did not find two distinct lines of what looked like cork nor a barber's pole which would have been distinctive. Indeed, although there were many floating bodies as witnessed by Lowe and his crew- Lord never even saw one of those.

Your entire current theory is based on 3 things:

1: Lord's 41-33N latitude and your acceptance that it was correct.
2: That Californian made good a course of 270T from approximately 6 miles south of where Lord had seen the lifeboats and other debris some 3 hours earlier.
3: That the debris Lord reported seeing was the main and only concentration of wreckage and debris and was therefore directly related to the exact spot where Titanic sank.

Consider this:

If Titanic went down at 41-44N and left debris consisting of bodies , a submerged collapsible and light debris at that location and there was no current; then, when the 16 knot wind sprung up after 4 AM, that wreckage would drift south at 0.8 knots and be at about 41-40.8'N at 8 AM. If, at 4 PM, the boats carrying survivors had started rowing south at 2 knots (wind helping) for a couple of hours toward Carpathia then they would have reached her in latitude 41-00 N. at about 6 AM. If Carpathia, and those boats continued to drift south for another two hours until 8 AM,then the boats and Carpathia would be in latitude 41-38.4'N.
At that time, the main wreckage would still be 1.6 miles to the north of them
If then, the remaining debris continued to drift south for another 2.5 hours, it would be at
41-36'N at 11-30 AM.

When Lord left the area at 11-30 AM, at least three of the bits of Titanic had gone - all the lifeboats except for the damaged one and the two collapsibles. The rest was very small stuff indeed - very hard to see in a choppy sea as it was by 11-30 AM. Are you suggesting that he hit that small stuff bang on at that time then turn due west?
Was the small stuff in question actually from the ship or from the lifeboats around Carpathia?
Rostron said stuff was thrown from the lifeboats when they came back along side Carpathia.

You keep using the expression 'the wreckage' as if there was only one spot where wreckage was found. This suggests that despite all these boats leaving 'the wreckage' and rowing down to Carpathia, that somehow, 'the wreckage' caught up with them and the whole kit and caboodle happily congregated at 41-33N!
Carpathia went north at some time and came across another concentration of wreckage possibly 2 miles to the north of where he picked up the last boats Major Peutin's evidence suggests this.

As for the wind; you wrote:

"Say the wreckage was affected by the wind for 8 hours."

My tables are calibrated at 6 hour intervals but here's some information for you.

First: The sea scale relative to a particular Beaufort Wind Force indicates the maximum expected average height for a wave after the wind has been blowing at that particular force over the open ocean for a minimum of 48 hours.
A wind of force 5 blowing for 6 hours will produce a wave height of just 3.5 feet. A wind of force 4 blowing for just 3 or 4 hours until say 7-30 AM, when these pictures were taken, will produce a wave exactly as seen in the photographs. Unfortunately, I can't remember the formula and my tables do not go below force 5.

To summarise:
You don't get a 3.5 feet wave from a force 4 wind 10 minutes or 10 hours after it starts blowing - it takes a minimum of 24 hours but probably 48 hours to get there. This rarely happens since the wind seldom blows from the same direction for that length of time.

We do know that the main concentration of wreckage was not at 41-33N so where was it? it wasn't to the south of that because according to Lord, Californian went 10 miles south then came back to the north again. Incidentally, he had no way of knowing just where he was during his search run since he would not have streamed his patent log and would be constantly changing course. That he eventually found himself in latitude 41-33N at Noon seems fair enough but to use that and then run back toward the debris
area as a scientific method of argument is less than plausible. To start with, he would not have made 6 miles through an ice field in half an hour or even 40 minutes while 'going slow' as he described that part of the trip. It's you who questions his navigation!

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>3 hours after having seen wreckage 'near the Carpathia' consisting of deck chairs, cushions, planks several boats and two collapsable boats -not incidentally an overturned, half-sunk one which would most certainly have been the best reference to determine set and/or drift. <<

25477. My impression is there is one collapsible still unaccounted for in that? - Oh, yes; I beg your pardon, one bottom up; one that was capsized. That was in the wreckage. That was the twenty.

25483. The two collapsibles? - Yes; and there is one Berthon boat which we saw amongst the wreckage bottom up......