Cabin number

[Ben Lemmon]

I was thinking about this discussion, reading posts in my e-mail, when a thought occurred to me. Is it possible that Frank Goldsmith and his mother's story was altered by the British Inquisition into the disaster?

Colonel Gracie's account of the disaster in The Story of the Titanic, As Told By Its Passengers lists the times the boats were lowered according to the British Inquisition. It mentions that Collapsible "C" was lowered at 1:40 AM. Later accounts of the disaster mention the same boat leaving at 2:00 in the morning, a full twenty minutes later.

If the Goldsmiths read that Collapsible "C" lowered at 1:40 AM but knew that their boat was being lowered, say, at about 2:00 AM (later accounts attested that "C" was lowered around this time), then perhaps this is where the "screw-up" occurred. They might have read the British Inquisition and saw that "C" was lowered about 1:40. If the time was closer to two, and the Goldsmiths knew it was closer to two, then perhaps they thought they were in Collapsible "D", which was lowered closer to two (the British Inquisition would attest it leaving the ship at 2:05-2:10).

Forgive me if I am not making any sense. I hope you understand what I am saying, and I look forward to seeing what anyone has to say.

 

[Bob Godfrey]

In the chaos of the final minutes it's not likely that anybody was checking their watch (if they had one)and making mental notes of the time for posterity. But I do think it possible that the idea of being in 'the last boat' is the key to Frank in later life changing his recollections from starboard to port. If at the time he heard calls that "this is the last boat" and later discovered that the last boat to leave the ship was in fact collapsible D, then he might have felt that his initial recollections of leaving from the starboard side (ie boat C) were wrong. There are numerous instances of survivors who later claimed to have been in 'the last boat', but that generally means they were in the last boat to leave the particular side/end of the ship from which it was lowered, as in each case the other three groups of boats were out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

Good point Bob. For example, I have seen several statements from survivors in No. 15 who stated that their boat was the "last boat", "last boat away from the ship", etc. Obviously, No. 15 was not the last boat away from the ship, but they were correct from the standpoint that their lifeboat was the last one of the aft starboard boats to get away, and they may not have been able to see boats still onboard elsewhere.

The idea that Frank may have later heard that Collapsible D was the last boat lowered away, and that is why he shifted his opinion from saying he was on the starboard side to the port side is entirely plausible in my opinion. This shift happened later on, so it is possible that is why he believed that.

Interesting thoughts guys.

Kind regards,
Tad

 

[George L. Lorton]

This is an interesting discussion! I, myself have always wondered if there was ever a passenger who thought they missed the supposed "last boat" and perhaps gave up leaving by boat or leaving at all if they were older thinking there were no more life boats to be be had on the ship when this wasn't the case.

This doesn't really fit into the discussion just me theorizing! Really this is why ships should have an Evacuation Plan! I could see the above scenario playing out very easily if someone didn't know the layout of the ship or wasn't aware that there were more boats and thought they were all gone.

 

[Ben Lemmon]

quote:

In the chaos of the final minutes it's not likely that anybody was checking their watch (if they had one)and making mental notes of the time for posterity.

True. However, one would think that even if time seemed to go by extremely slowly, they would still be able to tell the difference between leaving the Titanic 20 minutes before it sank versus 40 minutes before it sank. Also, there were people who recorded the time the Titanic sank as 2:20 AM. Perhaps the Goldsmiths thought that there was no way they had left the boat 40 minutes before it sank. So when the Inquisition's findings came out, they thought they were in Collapsible "D" instead of Collapsible "D" because it seemed more like 15 minutes than 40 minutes.

This is pure conjecture, and I am only trying to support my point. No offense was intended if it was taken. I was only trying to give another possible explanation of the possible occurrences.

And I do agree with you, Bob. The scenario mentioned is probably just as likely (if not more likely) than the scenario that ran through my caffeine-filled head. I just wanted to say what I thought might have happened.

 

[Bob Godfrey]

I don't know why you think you might have offended anyone here, Ben. Certainly not me.

I have to say, though, that while everybody knew there'd be an Inquiry, nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition.

Hey! We've got new emoticons.

 

[George L. Lorton]

Neat New Emotions!

Da, Da did you mean the... Spanish Inquitistion!!!Love the Monty Python refernce Bob! The Spanish Inquistion while somewhat brutal are effective! I recommend them, they do excellent work!

Although sometimes their all

.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>they would still be able to tell the difference between leaving the Titanic 20 minutes before it sank versus 40 minutes before it sank.

Time, my friend, is relative. Without a watch, or something familiar upon which to focus and give indication of its passing, time can be VERY confusing. 45 minutes in a math lecture seems like...oh...18 days, if you dont have a watch and can't see the clock. 45 minutes, while enjoying yourself but waiting for the dreaded math lecture to BEGIN, fly by like 18 seconds.

Sitting in the dark, on a VERY cold night, in your night clothes, after having been separated from EVERYTHING familiar to you, would be quite uncomfortable... and grow progressively worse. Unless you had a radium coated glowing watch, you'd have nothing upon which to base your perception of how quickly, or slowly, time was passing, other than your mounting discomfort.

I bring this up only to warn you that time and distance estimates have to be taken with EXTREME grains of salt in this particular disaster.

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

Jim wrote:
"I bring this up only to warn you that time and distance estimates have to be taken with EXTREME grains of salt in this particular disaster."

I would tend to agree to the extent that a person shouldn't take any one time estimate alone at face value.

However, if you start comparing multiple time estimates or specific times from multiple eyewitness accounts, and they tend to agree with each other or give the same general range, then we can have more confidence in what is being said. For some events in the timeline of the Titanic disaster it is possible to do this, and in others it isn't due to a lack of evidence.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

Yes. The portion of the disaster in which the Titanic was visibly moving, from the lifeboats, that is to say the rapidly accelerating portion of the sinking, rendered trustworthy time estimates, because there was something to focus upon. And, of course, time estimates given by people regarding what they did on the ship are broadly trustworthy because, even if they didn't have a watch, there were present all the normal cues we use to estimate time.

Where the trouble begins, is in placing too much emphasis on time estimates given by people regarding the partial-sensory deprivation portions of the disaster.

Again. An easy experiment you can do. I've done it. Sit in an entirely darkened room, on a chair. Place something uncomfortable between your back and the chair back, so you can never actually relax. Allow NO other stimulous, other than the nagging pressure on the small of your back. Then, sit for what you think is an hour. Leave the room and check how much time has actually elapsed. This can more readily replicate the Titanic experience if, as I did, you perform it outdoors on a VERY cold night, with your eyes blacked over.

This is particularly useful in reconciling the time estimates given for how long the victims screamed in the water. Half hour? 45 minutes? Cold water survival charts give a time estimate of more like ten minutes. Lusitania passengers, in water of 50-55F, were either dead of shock (if not wearing lifebelts) or sinking into stupors where they could no longer maintain a grip on debris (if wearing lifebelts) after the passage of little more than an hour. In water at least twice as warm as that of April 15, 1912. Yet, every Titanic survivor who later spoke or wrote, gives corresponding, mutually supporting, accounts containing impossibly long time estimates. With virtually NO visual stimulous other than starlight, tactile stimulous reduced to a hard board seat and perhaps someone jammed up next to you, extreme cold, and the sound of people you knew and possibly were related to, dying extremely tortured deaths at fairly close range, time would have expanded.

 

[Thomas William Goldsmith]

Well gentlemen as I have stated before all I can go by is 1)what he told me 2) what I have read in the newspaper clippings from his scrap book and 3) what I have heard recorded. From personal experience I know that newspaper stories are not the most accurate at times. I would, as I have stated before, be most grateful for any copies of information that anyone has that would be relevant to this. as far as the question of his mother and him seeing boat B being readied it was already gone, from my understanding, of when they were loaded. As far as boat A is concerned, it was on the deck when C was lowered because they could not get the sides up and it eventually was washed from the deck. The starboard side was in definate chaos at the time C was lowered and men were being allowed into the boats on the starboard side from the beginning. If my Greatgrandmother had described occupants of the boat she was in it is difficult to imagine that she would not have mentioned Ismay being in her boat. I know that I don't have all the answers but neither does anyone at this time. Again I ask only for copies of the evidence that would be helpful in this area because many have mentioned the articles and interviews but I have yet to find them myself. If there are links to these copies that would help. I take no offense to the discussion and hope not to offend anyone either like I said the quest for truth sometimes leads to uncomfortable positions.

 

[Bob Godfrey]

Tom, if your great grandmother had mentioned Ismay among the occupants of her boat it would have been as a nameless man she'd never seen before and didn't recognise. A man likely to be quiet and subdued and unwilling to draw attention to himself. Few people on board knew him, and certainly 5th Officer Lowe, who famously had an argument with Ismay on the boat deck, thought he was just another anonymous passenger. There's an incident in the memoirs of Lawrence Beesley which should be noted. In boat 13, at some stage during the night he found himself to be sitting right next to a woman that he actually knew personally - and only then because he was close enough to recognise her voice in the darkness. So it's not at all surprising that your great grandmother didn't mention seeing a man on a dark night that she didn't know and had probably never heard of. On the contrary, it would be very surprising if she had mentioned him.

 

[Thomas William Goldsmith]

Bob, You are probably correct in assuming that my Great-Grandmother would not have known Ismay while in the boat, however she and Grandfather would have known about him being their afterwards and probably before they did interviews. When rescued he made himself known to the crew and was escorted away. He spent his time on the Carpathia sequestered in privacy. At any rate Grandfather would have known about him later when he did interviews and most likely would have mentioned him due to it being pertinent to his story. As far as the lifeboat deck itself, the senior officers were loading the port side life boats and more junior officers were on the starboard side. In addition to this was the fact that lifeboat collapsible A was on the deck being franticly worked on because they could not get the sides up. It is also known that they were loading more men into boats on the starboard side and after collapsible C left some tried to rush to the port side which explains the part of their story of men trying to jump in front of my Great- Grandmother. Part of my point is that they would have seen A being worked on the deck but may not have been able to see b as it would most probably have been gone by the time they were loaded by their story. As with all things concerning the Titanic I was not there but they were and from all my research I have yet to find any thing putting them on the starboard side. This does not mean I am correct it just means that I need more than just statements made on here or elsewhere as to having proof to make me change my mind. I heard the story from my Grandfather at various times through the years, ( I was almost 19 when he died), and have recordings and newspaper interviews he has given dating into the 40's maybe even further back, all of which I base my position on. As I have said before send me copies or links to the copies of interviews or letters he has given or written so that I can examine them also. Until then my best guess, and after all that is all anyone can give because of the lack of records, is that he was correct in saying collapsible D. I hope everyone had a great 4th and look forward to more discussions.

 

[Paul Lee]

Boats A and B weren't being worked on the boat deck until boats C and D had left the Titanic. Also, you say more junior officers were on the starboard side; there is a strong possibility that Murdoch was there. Junior?! Hmm!
You seem to be overlooking the "scraping down the rivets" account. This could not be boat D as it hung away from the ships side.

 

[Bob Godfrey]

Tom, the evidence you need is right there in the recollections of your great grandmother and grandfather. They mentioned the boat dragging down the side of the ship, and the Chinese men who were present in it. How would you explain these observations if they were not in boat C (which did scrape its way down due to the list to port, and had several Chinese) as opposed to boat D (which swung well free of the ship due to the list, and had no Chinese)? We also know that Murdoch, a senior officer, fired into the air at boat C. Your grandfather described such an incident. We have no evidence of anything similar happening alongside boat D. And as Paul points out, the other two collapsibles weren't being prepared for launch until C and D were down and away. They couldn't be - they used the same sets of davits. The Ismay business is going round in circles. Frank and his mother couldn't have known Ismay at the time, so his presence or absence from their boat is simply an assumption they might make later based on their own conception of which boat they'd been in, and provides no evidence either way.