No lights on the horizon...rockets sent up anyway?

[Julian Atkins]

I am grateful for the further posts of Sam and Arun.

I have not had an opportunity these last few days to refresh my memory of Sam’s excellent book ‘Strangers on the Horizon’ which I recommend.

I am of the view that both Inquiries failed to properly investigate the evidence in the way that Sam has done. And unfortunately for @Mike Spooner the result had both Inquiries done as Sam has analytically done would have been even more devastating for Captain Lord, and potentially avoided years and years of a bit of a doubt here, and a bit of a doubt there.

Sam explains that for Stone and Gibson to see rockets AND the masthead light and red port sidelight from the other vessel must result in the other vessel being 12 - 13 miles away (Sam will no doubt correct me if my recollection is slightly off on the distance).

Others such as Boxhall thought that the distance between them was that specified by the Board of Trade for the minimum range of those lights. That was a stupid stance for Boxhall to take.

 

[Mike Spooner]

If some one like Sam had do a proper investigation in the inquiry at the time. I don't think it would of made a blind bit of different for captain Lord defence. They had made up there mind that Lord was been used at the scapegoat for the 1496 whom perished, for the saver of the WSL to and the out of date regulations set by the Government department called the Board of Trade. Politics can be a dirty business at times to save their necks.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The key evidence needed to do what I had done was the knowing of the exact position of the wreak. That position was not known in 1912. But they did have evidence of that it was not where Boxhall had calculated. Unfortunately, they had others, such as Rostron, who re-enforced the correctness of Boxhall's position, and that prevented further inquiry into the matter. Despite not knowing what we know today, the Commission, as well as the US Senate inquiry, came to correct conclusion that Titanic's distress signals were seen from Californian, and the Californian stood still.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Lords position was a DR position which placed his ship about 19 miles from the SOS position. However, that DR position that was put down in his logbook was further north than than what he messaged the Virginian at 6am Monday morning, where he informed Capt. Gambel that he was 17 miles northward and slightly eastward from the SOS location, the same latitude that appeared in the Antillean message of the day before. In reality, his ship had to have drifted further southward getting it to where it actually ended up, about 12 (give or take) miles NW from where Titanic had stopped. Lord's logbook DR is about 23 miles from wreck site.

I have been trying to understand the logic of Captain Lord's statements and actions based on Sam's assessment/sketch above and in his article Navigational Inconsistencies of the Californian. Also, how far and how quickly the stopped Californian could have drifted southward. As I have understood it:

• Lloyd plotted the position of the Californian by Dead Reckoning after he had ordered it stopped for the night due to the surrounding icy conditions. He logged this as 42*05'N by 50*07'W at 10:21pm on that Sunday (Lord's statement at the US senate inquiry).
• A bit later that night, the Titanic struck the iceberg and started flooding. Boxhall calculated its position (presumably also by DR) as 41*46'N by 50*14'W, and then passed it to the wireless ops for the distress calls.
• That SOS position by Boxhall, although erroneous, would have put the sinking Titanic about 19 miles south (in fact, slightly southwest, going by Sam's sketch) of the logged position of the Californian, but no one concerned would have realized it at the time.
• Again according his own testimony at the US Inquiry, Captain Lord learned abut the Titanic's SOS position at about 6am AST on Monday 15th April and the fact that the WSL liner had sunk with great loss of life. It would not have taken him long to work out that his own DR logged position of the Californian was about 19 miles north of the Titanic's SOS position.
• That being the case, what was Captain Lord's logic in telling Captain Gambel that the Californian was 17 miles Northeast of the Titanic's SOS position?
• But when he testified at the US Inquiry, Lord reverted to his belief that the two ships were over 19 miles apart.

In Sam's paper "Navigational Inconsistencies of the Californian", he puts the derived position of the Californian at 10:21pm (logged time) was 42°05’N by 50°07’W, that would put it 16.8 miles northeast of the Titanic's SOS position but going by the diagram, it seems a little further away to the northwest of the actual wreck site.

Now we know that the Titanic sank at 02:20am on Monday 15th April and the actual location of its wreck site. Momentarily ignoring the time difference between the Titanic's sinking position and the Californian, could the Leyland ship have drifted so much southward in a few hours for it to have been only about 12 miles northwest of the Titanic by the time Stone and Gibson saw the other ship's lights and then the rockets?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Firstly, what was put into Californian's formal logbook was written up well after the events took place. (Her scrap log was thrown overboard.) The last DR latitude from Lord was transmitted to Antillian as 42° 03'N. That was her DR when they passed those 3 icebergs at 6pm on the 14th. For Californian to be 17 miles north of the SOS at 6am Monday, its latitude should not have changed but remained at 42° 03'N when she stopped at 10:20pm that night. The SOS latitude sent to him was 41° 46'N. The difference in minutes-of-arc in latitudes is the difference in nautical miles in the N-S direction. Thus, (using 1°=60'), we have:
42° 03' - 41° 46' = 41° 63' - 41° 46'= 17', or 17 nautical miles in latitude. That is what Lord told Gambel. That distance was also written in one of Lord's letters to the BOT if I recall correctly.

Secondly, we know from the recorded water temperatures, Californian entered very cold waters by 4pm of the 14th. It is likely that from about that time onward she was being set southward by a southward moving current, and continued to do so even after she stopped. If they would had bothered to really have taken a celestial fix they would have discovered that. I don't believe that alleged pole star fix at 7:30pm was taken by Stewart, or if it was, it was recorded accurately. They certainly didn't take any fix in early morning hours which would have been ideal for them to do before getting underway. And if they did, we just don't know about it because Stewart nor Lord said anything about it. (Between 4:30-5:00am, during morning navigational twilight,, would have been the time to do so while Stewart was on watch.)

One of the ways I got 12-13 miles between vessels was to take an average southerly drift of about 1 knot starting at 4pm on the 14th and applying it to the Californian from 4pm onward. Her track over ground was heading more WSW than W. See att.

 

[Julian Atkins]

I would just like to add a degree of caution in accepting Captain J T Gambell’s account as published in newspaper articles at the time, because the SS Virginian’s PV has a huge gap, and from other sources of SS Virginian Marconigrams sent to The Californian there are worrying timing discrepancies.

This is perhaps a matter for a different thread, but I have not found any primary source evidence ie Marconigram messages of The Californian stating to the Virginian that their position was latitude X and longitude Y.

I would myself treat with caution what Captain Gambell of the SS Virginian said as to the 17 miles in a newspaper article(s), even if some months later Captain Lord said as much in a letter to the Board of Trade dated 10th August 1912 (also stating he had told Titanic and the Antillian that his position was inter alia 17 miles away).

I’ve got lots of notes on the issues with the initial contact between the SS Virginian and The Californian. There are Virginian Marconigrams that cover some of it’s PV gap, and there may be others in a box at Oxford… but of those we know about they don’t support the timings of Captain Gambell or the 17 miles distance.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Thank you very much for that post and especially the illustration, Sam. I am beginning to understand what could have happened as per your analysis but not having your technical expertise, will ask for clarification if I've understood it correctly. Please bear with me.

Firstly, what was put into Californian's formal logbook was written up well after the events took place. (Her scrap log was thrown overboard.)

I have read about the Californian's scrap log being 'discarded' before and also other 'conveniently missing' logbooks from that night (for example, the Rappahannock), although the reasons involved might have been slightly different. I don't want to digress into the topic of missing logbooks in this thread, but since the Californian's logging was mentioned, I want to clarify something about which I have often wondered. I always thought that a ship's log in those days was an important document, considering that methods of communication were limited and the radio was just coming out of infancy. That being the case, could a Captain or Officer claim "loss or misplacement" of the logbook - even the scrap log - without having to face repercussions? I would have thought there would have to be plausible explanations for such a document going missing.

Secondly, we know from the recorded water temperatures, Californian entered very cold waters by 4pm of the 14th. It is likely that from about that time onward she was being set southward by a southward moving current, and continued to do so even after she stopped. If they would had bothered to really have taken a celestial fix they would have discovered that. One of the ways I got 12-13 miles between vessels was to take an average southerly drift of about 1 knot starting at 4pm on the 14th and applying it to the Californian from 4pm onward. Her track over ground was heading more WSW than W. See att.

That I think explains what you said earlier. In the graphical sketch above, am I right in thinking that the second 'dot' was the presumed DR position logged onto the Californian's scrap log at 10:21pm on Sunday 14th April 1912, while the 'dot' immediately above (north) of that was the position that Lord entered into the main log after he realized the events that had taken place during the night? If so, he would have tried to place the Californian's stopped position further north than his own calculated DR position and thus further away from the sinking Titanic, in which case making the scrap log disappear would be a cover-up.

Then I assume that the track shown as "possible Californian track over ground" is the calculated actual route taken by the Leyland liner, allowing for the gradual southerly drift after in entered the cold water and current at around 4:30pm earlier that Saturday evening. That would mean that the third 'dot' on that diagram was the actual position which the Californian stopped for the night when Lord calculated the DR co-ordinates but without taking into account the southerly drift. I can see now why his ship's actual position was significantly further south the DR logged one and in the next 70 to 80 minutes drifted a little more (the 4th 'dot' marked as the Californian's position at 11:30pm AST). That would have placed the Californian considerably closer - around 11 to 12 miles as considered - to the point where the Titanic finally stopped after its collision with the iceberg.

Finally, the sketch shows both ships drifting southwest on almost parallel courses over the next 2 hours and 40 minutes (thus maintaining the 11-12 mile distance between them), at which point the Titanic sank completely and now lies as the wreck site discovered in 1985. The un-sunk wreckage continued to drift southwest and was spotted and reported by the Californian at 11:20am on Monday morning.

I think I've finally got it right.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Before making a big thing out of the scrap log was thrown over board. It was not required to keep as record.
You well come up with a figure of 11-13 miles away for the Californian. As the state control inquiry have come up with a figure less than 10 miles, in fact tried to quote down to a couple of miles on the most flimsy evidence. And will not listen to anything more than 10 miles away. Even ship lights seen by Titanic 5 away to row for can only be the Californian. Poor old captain Lord a high qualified navigator hasn't got a chance against non qualified navigators in a state control inquiry. Yet held responsible for the 1496 whom died, yet he was never prosecute for manslaughter. What a shamble of a inquiry was for the real true.

 

[Alan Smithee]

It’s fascinating to me that people are still arguing about whether or not the Californian and the Titanic saw each other.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I would myself treat with caution what Captain Gambell of the SS Virginian said as to the 17 miles in a newspaper article(s), even if some months later Captain Lord said as much in a letter to the Board of Trade dated 10th August 1912 (also stating he had told Titanic and the Antillian that his position was inter alia 17 miles away).

I understand your caution, but the 17 miles stated does seem to line up with the number that came from Lord himself in that letter to the BOT, and obviously agrees with the difference in latitudes that I pointed out. There is no doubt that Gambel told the press that Lord told him that Californian was 17 miles north of the SOS. Where else would Gambel get that number from? But that does not mean Lord communicated his stopped DR coordinates to Gambel. As you know, not every message exchange, especially between operators, was recorded down in the PVs.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I think I've finally got it right.

Pretty much so. The 2nd dot is where my DR navigation put Californian at10:21pm based on what we told about her noontime location and the intended track to 42°N, 51° W that came from Lord's 1959 affidavit. There is a subtle difference of 1 mile in latitude at the stopping point in 50° 07'W longitude. That 2nd dot of mine is at 42° 02'N.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

By the way, Titanic's course was also affected by that southerly current. However, because she was traveling twice as fast, the southward set was 1/2 as much for each mile of westward travel for Titanic as compared to each mile of westward travel for Californian. I showed this in the Centennial book in Fig 10-12. (The influence of the southerly drift starting around the region of the vertical dashed line in the figure.) The intended course lines for both vessels are also shown (thin dark gray) in the diagram. For Californian, it was 269° true from noon onward. For Titanic, it was 266° true after the turning point at the corner at 5:50pm.

 

[Julian Atkins]

I always thought that a ship's log in those days was an important document, considering that methods of communication were limited and the radio was just coming out of infancy. That being the case, could a Captain or Officer claim "loss or misplacement" of the logbook - even the scrap log - without having to face repercussions?

Section 239 subsection 6 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 is the answer to the question.

The Ships Log is admissible in evidence without needing to be ‘proved’.

(Compare say to railway accidents that the Board of Trade also dealt with, all documents had to be ‘proved’ by the maker of the document giving evidence as to the truth and accuracy of the document such as a Signalman’s Register. Or in other matters not involving the Board of Trade a Policeman’s notebook, or a bank ledger compiled by a bank clerk etc.)

S.239 (6) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 may have given rise to the practice of throwing away of ‘scrap logs’ that are in effect the basis of the Ships Log, and arguably very important evidence in a matter such as The Californian Incident.

 

[Julian Atkins]

I understand your caution, but the 17 miles stated does seem to line up with the number that came from Lord himself in that letter to the BOT, and obviously agrees with the difference in latitudes that I pointed out. There is no doubt that Gambel told the press that Lord told him that Californian was 17 miles north of the SOS. Where else would Gambel get that number from? But that does not mean Lord communicated his stopped DR coordinates to Gambel. As you know, not every message exchange, especially between operators, was recorded down in the PVs.

Hi Sam,

I consider that there are some very important difficulties with Captain Gambell’s newspaper interviews at the time.

Others such a Leslie Reade in ‘TSTS’ latched onto something else Captain Gambell said. You have acknowledged in your book ‘Strangers on the Horizon’ that Captain Gambell got his timings wrong over that.

But of the initial contact between the SS Virginian and The Californian, the timings are also ‘out’. This is based on the Marconigrams so far in the public domain of the SS Virginian.

As there is as yet no Marconigram published as to The Californian telling the SS Virginian it’s position around 5.45am on the 15th April the coordinates or distance of 17 miles, I must remain cautious.

My cautious approach extends to Captain Lord’s letter to the Board of Trade of 10th August 1912. In that letter he also states he told the Antillian and Titanic that The Californian was 17 miles away - which cannot be correct at all.

In respect of the above we know exactly what MSGs were exchanged between The Californian and the Antillian. They are in Booth. No 17 miles from Titanic. So there is already an untruth in that 10th August 1912 letter.

I won’t bore forum members with an examination of the initial contacts via Marconigrams between The Californian and the SS Virginian, but what Captain Gambell said in his press statements doesn’t add up or make sense especially as to the timings he quoted as they do not correspond to the original Marconigram MSGs.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

S.239 (6) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 may have given rise to the practice of throwing away of ‘scrap logs’ that are in effect the basis of the Ships Log, and arguably very important evidence in a matter such as The Californian Incident.

I would have thought so. In my own field, medical records did not go completely paperless till the late 1990s. Up until then, we were taking official patient written records in the so called "Lloyd George Envelopes" during house calls and anything entered by the doctor during the consultation was considered a legal document even after that entry had been copied on to the computer records back in the office. "Losing" something like that would have been considered very serious and if associated with an adverse patient incident, the concerned practitioner would have been in real hot water.