Titanic: Changing the Reality

A detailed rebuttal to David G. Brown’s article, “Titanic: Changing Course.” Chirnside and Halpern challenge Brown’s theories regarding the Titanic’s navigation and timing adjustments on the night of the sinking. They argue that Brown’s suggestion of a late course change at 11:30 p.m. and his idea of a 24-minute discrepancy in clock settings lack substantiation. They cite navigational practices, the reliability of distress position coordinates, and historical witness statements, concluding that Brown’s claims are based on speculative interpretations rather than conclusive evidence. The authors present counterarguments rooted in navigational data and survivor testimony to affirm the established timeline and course of events leading up to the Titanic’s collision with the iceberg.

Key Points

Purpose:

The authors aim to demonstrate that Brown’s conclusions are unsupportable when all available evidence is considered.
They address Brown’s accusations against their research and provide a factual rebuttal.

Brown’s Nine “Navigationally Significant” Points:

The authors refute Brown’s points, highlighting inaccuracies and unsupported assumptions.
They clarify the correct navigational practices and data, such as the proper course to New York and the actual speed of the Titanic.

Course Change Theory:

Brown’s theory that Titanic altered course at 11:30 p.m. is unsupported and speculative.
The authors argue that there is no evidence of a course change and that it makes no navigational sense.

Time of Collision:

Brown’s claim that the collision occurred at 12:04 a.m. on April 14 time is refuted.
The authors provide evidence from passenger and crew testimonies that the collision occurred around 11:40 p.m.

Clock Adjustments:

Brown’s theory that crew clocks were set back by 24 minutes before the accident is not supported by the evidence.
The authors argue that the clocks were not adjusted until after the collision.

Navigational Concerns:

The authors address Brown’s navigational concerns, explaining the proper use of dead reckoning and the significance of the CQD positions.
They argue that Brown’s interpretation of the navigational data is flawed and unsupported.

Distortions and Misstatements:

The authors highlight several distortions and misstatements in Brown’s article.
They refute Brown’s accusations against their research and clarify their methods and findings.

Summary and Conclusions:

The authors conclude that Brown’s major claims are unsupportable.
They emphasize that their research is based on a thorough examination of the evidence and proper navigational practices.

Find it on www.titanicology.com

Encyclopedia Titanica is not responsible for the content of external sites, and the availability of links may change.

About Research References on Encyclopedia Titanica
This item is not available to read on Encyclopedia Titanica, but we have included it as a reference, provided a brief summary of the key points, and linked to the original source to help readers interested in the finer details of the Titanic story.