Comprehensive research of the mirage theory

[Mila]

Do you have any pictures of the mirages you see in Finland?

 

[Aaron_2016]

I'm not doubting either the mist or the mirage, however, I don't see how the mirage could have played a major role in the disaster. Where I spend my summers here in Finland I see mirages at sea all the time. When the water is calm islands in the distance seem to float in the air. The horizon gets erased and the reflection is so perfect you can't see where solid land begins or ends. I have never seen this at night though, and never at a closer distance than 2.5 km (1.6 miles). Maybe mid-Atlantic mirages are different but if they aren't there is no way a mirage would exist yet fool anyone at half a mile.

Reminds me of the hills of Scotland I see 30 miles away and a lighthouse that are occasionally affected by the atmosphere both day and night.


Captain! A ship is coming to our rescue just 8 miles away. Sadly it is a stationary lighthouse about 30 miles away that is being refracted by the atmosphere. Help is not coming.

Mr. Crawford
"Captain Smith could see the light quite plain, as he pointed in the direction that we were to make for. We pulled toward the light, and we could not reach it.....He pointed in the direction of the two lights, and said: “Pull for that vessel; land your people and return to the ship.” Those were Captain Smith’s words."


.

 

[Mikael K]

Do you have any pictures of the mirages you see in Finland?

No I haven't taken any photos, but you kind of get the idea from these pictures: kangastus meri - Google Search

Regarding the Californian business I find it very likely that some kind of mirage might have fooled people aboard both that ship and on the Titanic.

 

[Mila]

What puzzled me that you said you saw mirages from 1.6 miles, which is too close for a Fata Morgana. The search you linked to shows mostly inferior mirages, not Fata Morganas as Maltin claimed was at the wreck site.
Now, you say that you believe that a mirage fooled people on both ships. How so? Could you be more specific please?

 

[Mikael K]

I'm not too certain about the distances but I remember roughly which islands I've seen from where and just measured the distance in google maps. I haven't read Maltin's book (only seen the documentary) so I cannot really comment on that, nor am I an expert on weather conditions.

Having seen mirages all my life I can understand these conditions causing confusion, and with all the testimonies about blurred horizons, ocean liners looking like tramp steamers and confusing lights and distances it makes sense. We can be sure about one thing at least: the weather conditions were very peculiar that night. I've seen all kinds of mist/smoke/vapor forming over the sea at night, at times in such a manner that you can't really see it but you know it's there because there's an "atmosphere", a weirdness and altering of visibility that you can't put your finger on. You probably couldn't get it on camera either. Maybe something of that kind fooled the lookouts?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

sea smoke could have developed not only around ice fields as it often does, but also above filaments of warmer water.

Sea smoke is very low lying and would be quite localized, like over field ice or even surrounding an iceberg. There is no way that Fleet could see sea smoke over a field of ice 10 minutes before collision. As I said above, I place very little credibility to second and third hand accounts.

 

[Mila]

Sea smoke is very low lying and would be quite localized, like over field ice or even surrounding an iceberg. There is no way that Fleet could see sea smoke over a field of ice 10 minutes before collision. As I said above, I place very little credibility to second and third hand accounts.

Well, in my article I cited a source that states that sea smoke could be as high as 100 feet and i did see pictures of such sea smoke, and i saw it myself too. Fleet could have seen ice-blink. I did include some sources on ice-blinks seen on clear nights. I know in your book you say it cannot be seen on clear nights, but apperantly it could. As I mentioned a few times I believe the sources that provide details even if it is a second hand source. In the situation with the Titanic most eyewitnesses (first-hand sources) gave testimonies that condratict each other, some even contradict their own testimonies. For example Mr. Lightoller testified that the water temperature felt as 34 degrees when he jumped in, but later when he learned that Californian measured it as 28 degrees he wrote a book in which he said it was 28 degrees, and said that it felt as thousand needles or something like that entered his body. So which should we believe the initial testimony or the book? Mr. Boxhall testified he saw navigational lights of approaching Californian. Later he said he saw deck lights too. So I am looking for the details in my sources, but why you concentrate only on the second-hand source. I did provide three first-hand sources besides Lee and Fleet.

 

[Mila]

In addition to my prior post here's an image https://dapixara.com/News/files/stunning-sea-smoke.jpg photographed in the Atlantic ocean. I cannot understand how you could make claims such as "Sea smoke is very low lying" without providing any evidence. Besides as I mentioned many times already in the situation with the Titanic sea smoke could have formed not only over ice fields, but also over warm water filaments and warm water eddies that probably were present in the area of the time of the disaster.