The Sinking of the Titanic: An Ice Pilot’s Perspective

Did an of you read this one yet? Although, there's an interesting theory on growlers and refraction, the author claims among other things Boxhall's position was correct and the Titanic DID NOT break in two. Also, his views on the Titanic-Californian issue are borderline Leslie Harrison thinking with only the testimony that supports his thinking included. His theories on refraction around ice are interesting and made it worth the buy, however.

Michael Koch

Reply Like

Hi Michael,
has anyone noticed that there are an inordinate number of Michaels on this board? I'm sure it is some sinister plot somehow or other, just haven't figured out how yet. ;-)

anyway, I thought that Captain Collins had the beginnings of some interesting theories, but he didn't flesh out his arguments enough. there was quite a bit of discussion about this book about a month ago. scroll down the books listings and take a look at the thread "No Iceberg". I gave the book a complete review in that thread. you should find it sometime around mid May.

all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T

Reply Like

It was the information on ice conditions that prompted me to order the book in the first place. Unfortunately, the voice of people with actual experience navigating in ice conditions is seldom ever heard from and it would be nice to hear from a technical expert on the matter who has actually "been there done that."

I'm looking forward to it.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

Reply Like

Michael T, perhaps, we should rename this "the Michael thread?" 🙂

Michael S., that is why I got the book, because I so interested in hearing from someone with experience in ice. That part of the book is very interesting, but I wish he would have spent a little more time and detailed more of his ice experiences relating them to April 14-15, 1912. Bottom line, there is too much evidence that it was a berg, but it did make you think a lot. The worst part of it is him wasting time with his Californian and CQD position chapters. These chapters were just sort of thrown in there, didn't really go along in any sort of order with the rest of the book and were way off IMHO. I think he could have easily wrote this book only dealing with the ice issue and it would have worked because of his credentials. He also spent too much time just throwing in pieces from the U.S. and British hearings without commenting on them. Still, I don't regret buying it, because it made me think and if it weren't for all the counter testimony, I could have bought into the growler theory.

Michael Koch

Reply Like

There is a new T book from Canada......quite interesting and worth a read. Attached is a link to a review of same I wrote for a local (Ottawa)museum.

I generally don't like revisionists, but this attempt is rather good.

Here is the link:

http://www.nepeanmuseum.on.ca/review.html

G

Reply Like

Compelling Titanic Thoughts from the Rock​

Reply Like