-
Let's stay in touch! Sign up for our occasional (but interesting) newsletter.
Discover new research on all aspects of the sinking, interesting Titanic facts, and learn more about the Titanic's passengers and crew.
Ghost Stories
- Thread starter Covianna Mohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ghosts
Michael H. Standart
Member
Goerge, anyone can offer these stories after the fact...and how does ANYONE of us know that the one offering up the story is being completely candid or just trying to get a moment in the limelight. That's the real problem with claims like that. There's just no way of knowing and that's why I just can't take them seriously.
Now if somebody claiming to be a psychic was to publish such premonitions in exactly correct detail BEFOR the events, then there might be something worth checking out.
Now if somebody claiming to be a psychic was to publish such premonitions in exactly correct detail BEFOR the events, then there might be something worth checking out.
Dan Cherry
Member
The novel 'Futility' seems to do a good job of
foreshadowing the Titanic disaster, in 1898.
Of course, there are always those stories of
premonition that simply can't be bought, such as
the Slade brothers' mother's tale. She supposedly
said they didn't board because of a premonition,
but truth be known they spent a little too much
time at a local pub and simply missed the boat.
Accepting stories for what they're worth has to be
determined by the person's M.O. As Michael says,
are they being candid or just trying to get a
moment in the limelight. Someone can say that a
ship will sink, or a plane will crash, and
eventually, it may come true. Still, many stories
prevail about premonitions about the ship's
voyage. I tend to believe Eva Hart's recollection
of her mother's dread, as well as those who saw
the stoker poke his head above the 4th funnel
casing at Queenstown as an ill omen. The New York
incident also stirred up thoughts about impending
disaster. So, the seed of catastrophe was planted
in some people's minds on April 10, 1912 as it
was. And, as it turns out, this time the people
were right.
George, on a side note, I have examined the
stories and testimonies over the years, and I only
found one incident where a passenger supposedly
recalled seeing 'the' iceberg an hour before the
collision. Could you point me in the direction of
where you found reasons to believe several
icebergs/pieces of ice were spotted in the half
hour before the collision? I find it somewhat
interesting that this bit of information hasn't
been made part of the widely-known history of the
Titanic disaster.
Regards,
Dan
foreshadowing the Titanic disaster, in 1898.
Of course, there are always those stories of
premonition that simply can't be bought, such as
the Slade brothers' mother's tale. She supposedly
said they didn't board because of a premonition,
but truth be known they spent a little too much
time at a local pub and simply missed the boat.
Accepting stories for what they're worth has to be
determined by the person's M.O. As Michael says,
are they being candid or just trying to get a
moment in the limelight. Someone can say that a
ship will sink, or a plane will crash, and
eventually, it may come true. Still, many stories
prevail about premonitions about the ship's
voyage. I tend to believe Eva Hart's recollection
of her mother's dread, as well as those who saw
the stoker poke his head above the 4th funnel
casing at Queenstown as an ill omen. The New York
incident also stirred up thoughts about impending
disaster. So, the seed of catastrophe was planted
in some people's minds on April 10, 1912 as it
was. And, as it turns out, this time the people
were right.
George, on a side note, I have examined the
stories and testimonies over the years, and I only
found one incident where a passenger supposedly
recalled seeing 'the' iceberg an hour before the
collision. Could you point me in the direction of
where you found reasons to believe several
icebergs/pieces of ice were spotted in the half
hour before the collision? I find it somewhat
interesting that this bit of information hasn't
been made part of the widely-known history of the
Titanic disaster.
Regards,
Dan
Dave Gittins
Member
Dan, Futility was not as prophetic as it's made out to be. It was rewritten in 1912 to make the fictional ship more like Titanic. The original Titan was smaller and had less power. The book also has no resemblance to the facts at many points. Titan was not on her maiden voyage, she carried sails to assist her engines and so on. The book is really the work of a seaman who could see what would happen if ships continued to be run in a casual manner.
The business of seeing bergs before the collison is not of mentioned because it didn't happen. It comes largely from a big-mouthed steward called Thomas Whiteley who told a wild yarn to the US press. He supposedly heard the lookouts talking about it while in a boat. He can't name his sources, he was not in a boat with Lee or Fleet and best of all, they supposedly saw the bergs in the moonlight! People like Whiteley always appear when major things happen. Their egos feed on making out to have inside information.
For more on stories foreshadowing Titanic, read The Titanic Disaster Foretold, edited by Martin Gardiner, the famous scourge of flim-flam.
The business of seeing bergs before the collison is not of mentioned because it didn't happen. It comes largely from a big-mouthed steward called Thomas Whiteley who told a wild yarn to the US press. He supposedly heard the lookouts talking about it while in a boat. He can't name his sources, he was not in a boat with Lee or Fleet and best of all, they supposedly saw the bergs in the moonlight! People like Whiteley always appear when major things happen. Their egos feed on making out to have inside information.
For more on stories foreshadowing Titanic, read The Titanic Disaster Foretold, edited by Martin Gardiner, the famous scourge of flim-flam.
Michael H. Standart
Member
Hi Dave, seeing ANYTHING in the moonlight on a night with no moon must have been quite a trick. I wish I could have pulled that off. Would have been useful when I was on the USS Comstock in the Persian Gulf looking for debris from a crashed helicopter. Even with searchlights, we couldn't see diddly squat past 50 meters or so!
I wonder if it ever occured to the reporters to check an almanac after chatting with Whiteley. I guess newshawks were as gullible then as they are now.
I wonder if it ever occured to the reporters to check an almanac after chatting with Whiteley. I guess newshawks were as gullible then as they are now.
George Behe
Member
Michael Standart wrote:
>how does
>ANYONE of us know that the one offering up the story is being completely
>candid or just trying to get a moment in the >limelight.
Hi, Michael!
We face that same problem when we read *any* survivor account, though -- whether it involves psychic phenomena or not. (Did Captain Smith really rush onto the bridge and ask First Officer Murdoch "What have we struck?" We only have one man's word for it.........) The suggestion that grief-stricken family members of 'psychic' Titanic victims hungered to see their own names in the newspapers doesn't hold any water with me, though. (In a similar vein, I doubt if President Taft felt much of a need for newspaper publicity when he told reporters about Major Butt's premonition.)
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Dan Cherry wrote:
>The novel 'Futility' seems to do a good job of
>foreshadowing the Titanic disaster, in 1898.
Hi, Dan!
Funny you should say that -- I've always regarded the 'Futility' account as just an odd coincidence.
>Of course, there are always those stories of
>premonition that simply can't be bought, such as
>the Slade brothers' mother's tale. She supposedly
>said they didn't board because of a premonition,
>but truth be known they spent a little too much
>time at a local pub and simply missed the boat.
The two accounts are not mutually exclusive, though -- the Slades could easily have been dragging their feet *because* of the dream.
> Could you point me in the direction of
>where you found reasons to believe several
>icebergs/pieces of ice were spotted in the half
>hour before the collision?
If you'd like to see all of the information gathered together in one place, it's presented in my book "Titanic: Safety, Speed and Sacrifice." The book's bibliography lists each individual source from which I gleaned my information. (If you like footnotes, you'll love my book.) However, I don't know *for certain* that three icebergs were spotted prior to 11:40 for the simple reason that all of the survivor interviews in question came from newspapers instead of from personal memoirs written by the survivors themselves. (The survivors in question were all long-dead by the time I wrote my book, so I was unable to interview them in person.) However, the large number and similarity of these independent survivor interviews certainly (IMO) gives us some serious food for thought.
>I find it somewhat
>interesting that this bit of information hasn't
>been made part of the widely-known history of the
>Titanic disaster.
The British Titanic Society is the only society that has published a review of my book. (I'll leave it to your imagination to guess why the American societies have declined to do so.)
All my best,
George
>how does
>ANYONE of us know that the one offering up the story is being completely
>candid or just trying to get a moment in the >limelight.
Hi, Michael!
We face that same problem when we read *any* survivor account, though -- whether it involves psychic phenomena or not. (Did Captain Smith really rush onto the bridge and ask First Officer Murdoch "What have we struck?" We only have one man's word for it.........) The suggestion that grief-stricken family members of 'psychic' Titanic victims hungered to see their own names in the newspapers doesn't hold any water with me, though. (In a similar vein, I doubt if President Taft felt much of a need for newspaper publicity when he told reporters about Major Butt's premonition.)
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Dan Cherry wrote:
>The novel 'Futility' seems to do a good job of
>foreshadowing the Titanic disaster, in 1898.
Hi, Dan!
Funny you should say that -- I've always regarded the 'Futility' account as just an odd coincidence.
>Of course, there are always those stories of
>premonition that simply can't be bought, such as
>the Slade brothers' mother's tale. She supposedly
>said they didn't board because of a premonition,
>but truth be known they spent a little too much
>time at a local pub and simply missed the boat.
The two accounts are not mutually exclusive, though -- the Slades could easily have been dragging their feet *because* of the dream.
> Could you point me in the direction of
>where you found reasons to believe several
>icebergs/pieces of ice were spotted in the half
>hour before the collision?
If you'd like to see all of the information gathered together in one place, it's presented in my book "Titanic: Safety, Speed and Sacrifice." The book's bibliography lists each individual source from which I gleaned my information. (If you like footnotes, you'll love my book.)
However, I don't know *for certain* that three icebergs were spotted prior to 11:40 for the simple reason that all of the survivor interviews in question came from newspapers instead of from personal memoirs written by the survivors themselves. (The survivors in question were all long-dead by the time I wrote my book, so I was unable to interview them in person.) However, the large number and similarity of these independent survivor interviews certainly (IMO) gives us some serious food for thought. >I find it somewhat
>interesting that this bit of information hasn't
>been made part of the widely-known history of the
>Titanic disaster.
The British Titanic Society is the only society that has published a review of my book. (I'll leave it to your imagination to guess why the American societies have declined to do so.)
All my best,
George
Michael H. Standart
Member
George, what prompts you to assume that greif stricken family members would always have noble motives or that some wouldn't take advantage of the situation for any number of reasons? And what would prompt anyone to beleive all the family members were necessarily greiving? Even some of the survivors...like that steward, Whiteley...were all too willing to make up stories. We may well never know everything that was said and done on the ship, but we at least have physical evidence to corroberate much of the witnesses testified to, and correct what some got wrong. Ghost stories are impossible to verify by any means.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Dan Cherry
Member
George,
Well, it may be because I was 'tainted' by all the
hype surrounding the book and Titanic
'coincidences' and was slanted by it all - so one
would read the account with pre-conceived notions
Thank you for your input regarding the matter.
Dave - on your 'recommended reading', I'll have to
say, no thank you - I'll pass
Regards,
Well, it may be because I was 'tainted' by all the
hype surrounding the book and Titanic
'coincidences' and was slanted by it all - so one
would read the account with pre-conceived notions
Thank you for your input regarding the matter.
Dave - on your 'recommended reading', I'll have to
say, no thank you - I'll pass
Regards,
George Behe
Member
Michael Standart wrote:
>George, what prompts you to assume that greif stricken family members
>would always have noble motives or that some wouldn't take advantage of
>the situation for any number of reasons?
Hi, Michael!
Family members don't *always* have noble motives -- any more than they *always* have nefarious motives.
The 'psychic' cases I've dismissed as unreliable are already on record (as are my specific reasons for dismissing them.) Earlier in this thread I presented a number of cases that I've researched thoroughly and regard as being rather impressive. If you have reason to dismiss any of these cases as being unreliable, please list each such case individually and document your claims with specific historical evidence. I'm always eager to obtain new information that bears on the subjects I've written about, and I'm perfectly willing to modify my opinion of the specific psychic accounts I mentioned -- but only if the contrary evidence I'm provided with is historically accurate.
All my best,
George
>George, what prompts you to assume that greif stricken family members
>would always have noble motives or that some wouldn't take advantage of
>the situation for any number of reasons?
Hi, Michael!
Family members don't *always* have noble motives -- any more than they *always* have nefarious motives.
The 'psychic' cases I've dismissed as unreliable are already on record (as are my specific reasons for dismissing them.) Earlier in this thread I presented a number of cases that I've researched thoroughly and regard as being rather impressive. If you have reason to dismiss any of these cases as being unreliable, please list each such case individually and document your claims with specific historical evidence. I'm always eager to obtain new information that bears on the subjects I've written about, and I'm perfectly willing to modify my opinion of the specific psychic accounts I mentioned -- but only if the contrary evidence I'm provided with is historically accurate.
All my best,
George
George Behe
Member
Dave Gittins wrote:
>The business of seeing bergs before the collison >is not of mentioned
>because it didn't happen.
Hi, Dave!
I stand corrected.
All my best,
George
(P.S. There's a *lot* more to the story than just Thomas Whiteley.)
>The business of seeing bergs before the collison >is not of mentioned
>because it didn't happen.
Hi, Dave!
I stand corrected.
All my best,
George
(P.S. There's a *lot* more to the story than just Thomas Whiteley.)
Michael H. Standart
Member
George, I would tend to dismiss all such for several reasons, one being that they are absolutely impossible to really prove. Now if somebody offered such a premonition up in exact detail BEFOR the fact, and made an effort to make such very public knowladge, one might have something to go on, but it never happens that way. In the end, you end up getting such stories after the fact, and usually second, third, or forth hand.
If that works for you, fine and dandy, but it never works for me and never will.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
If that works for you, fine and dandy, but it never works for me and never will.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
George Behe
Member
Michael Standart wrote:
>George, I would tend to dismiss all such for several reasons, one being
>that they are absolutely impossible to really prove.
Hi, Michael!
So is the claim that Captain Smith asked Murdoch, "What have we struck?"
>If that works for you, fine and dandy, but it never works for me and
>never will.
By the same token, blanket dismissals of these accounts without specific historical evidence upon which to base those dismissals don't work for me.
As I said earlier, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
On a completely separate note:
>Even some of the survivors...like that steward, >Whiteley...were all too willing to make up >stories.
Before you completely accept the description of Whiteley as being a liar re: the three 'early' icebergs, you might want to know that Titanic's lookouts told a number of other survivors about those same bergs while on still board the Carpathia.
IMO, many people are far too hasty when it comes to dismissing 'debatable' historical incidents as being impossible. These same people would probably laugh at the suggestion that RMS Baltic once ran aground close to the New Jersey shore, that hundreds and hundreds of people saw her there, that she eventually pulled herself into deep water but almost cut off the passing Mauretania while doing so, that the entire incident was duly reported in the New York Times -- and yet the next day officers of the White Star Line were denying that the incident ever took place and insisting that it must have been some *other* shipping line's vessel that had run aground. Silly, isn't it -- but it happened nevertheless. Compared to *that* comical White Star coverup, the possibility that White Star might have covered up Titanic's close encounter with three 'early' icebergs is not far-fetched at all.
All my best,
George
>George, I would tend to dismiss all such for several reasons, one being
>that they are absolutely impossible to really prove.
Hi, Michael!
So is the claim that Captain Smith asked Murdoch, "What have we struck?"
>If that works for you, fine and dandy, but it never works for me and
>never will.
By the same token, blanket dismissals of these accounts without specific historical evidence upon which to base those dismissals don't work for me.
As I said earlier, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
On a completely separate note:
>Even some of the survivors...like that steward, >Whiteley...were all too willing to make up >stories.
Before you completely accept the description of Whiteley as being a liar re: the three 'early' icebergs, you might want to know that Titanic's lookouts told a number of other survivors about those same bergs while on still board the Carpathia.
IMO, many people are far too hasty when it comes to dismissing 'debatable' historical incidents as being impossible. These same people would probably laugh at the suggestion that RMS Baltic once ran aground close to the New Jersey shore, that hundreds and hundreds of people saw her there, that she eventually pulled herself into deep water but almost cut off the passing Mauretania while doing so, that the entire incident was duly reported in the New York Times -- and yet the next day officers of the White Star Line were denying that the incident ever took place and insisting that it must have been some *other* shipping line's vessel that had run aground. Silly, isn't it -- but it happened nevertheless. Compared to *that* comical White Star coverup, the possibility that White Star might have covered up Titanic's close encounter with three 'early' icebergs is not far-fetched at all.
All my best,
George
Inger Sheil
Member
G'day, All -
As I've said before when we've debated your book, George, I believe it is very possible that Fleet and Lee made comments to people on the Carpathia that they had given warnings to the bridge prior to the final call (reports vary slightly, so either they were telling different versions, or the people hearing the story added their own errors in relating it, or the reporters garbled it - all are possible).
However, a point to consider is that these men were not disinterested witnesses. They were male crew survivors - bad enough. They were also the lookouts on duty when the collision occured. Can you imagine explaining *that* little fact to the passengers?
Repeating such stories under oath would, however, be another matter entirely. Hence the change in tales.
From the material posted on this board and from my own discussions with merchant mariners (and my own experience sighting objects on dark nights at sea, limited though that experience is) any icebergs sighted under those conditions would have had to be very close to the ship. For Murdoch to pass not one but *three* and not alert the Captain would be beyond recklessness, even under the normal (read: 'occasionally hair-raising') standards in the mercantile marine of the era. As you have reconstructed events, the three icewarnings would have come in comparatively swift succession. I have more respect for Murdoch as a seaman than to think he would have stood on the bridge and simply passively accept the reports saying something to the effect of 'oh well - carry on'. The risk - and he was a man who would have known the risks, and who had experience on the Olympic of the manoueving capabilities of these new mammoth liners - of damage to the new ship on her maiden voyage outweighed the benefits to be derived from beating the Olympic's maiden voyage crossing time.
I find your theory interesting, but second hand reports of the lookout's comments (which are in Whitely's case incorporated into a dubious account), given that the lookouts did not repeat their allegations under oath and were not disinterested witnesses, are insufficient to permit me as a researcher to readily charge William Murdoch and James Moody with the manslaughter of 1,500 people.
Regards,
Inger
As I've said before when we've debated your book, George, I believe it is very possible that Fleet and Lee made comments to people on the Carpathia that they had given warnings to the bridge prior to the final call (reports vary slightly, so either they were telling different versions, or the people hearing the story added their own errors in relating it, or the reporters garbled it - all are possible).
However, a point to consider is that these men were not disinterested witnesses. They were male crew survivors - bad enough. They were also the lookouts on duty when the collision occured. Can you imagine explaining *that* little fact to the passengers?
Repeating such stories under oath would, however, be another matter entirely. Hence the change in tales.
From the material posted on this board and from my own discussions with merchant mariners (and my own experience sighting objects on dark nights at sea, limited though that experience is) any icebergs sighted under those conditions would have had to be very close to the ship. For Murdoch to pass not one but *three* and not alert the Captain would be beyond recklessness, even under the normal (read: 'occasionally hair-raising') standards in the mercantile marine of the era. As you have reconstructed events, the three icewarnings would have come in comparatively swift succession. I have more respect for Murdoch as a seaman than to think he would have stood on the bridge and simply passively accept the reports saying something to the effect of 'oh well - carry on'. The risk - and he was a man who would have known the risks, and who had experience on the Olympic of the manoueving capabilities of these new mammoth liners - of damage to the new ship on her maiden voyage outweighed the benefits to be derived from beating the Olympic's maiden voyage crossing time.
I find your theory interesting, but second hand reports of the lookout's comments (which are in Whitely's case incorporated into a dubious account), given that the lookouts did not repeat their allegations under oath and were not disinterested witnesses, are insufficient to permit me as a researcher to readily charge William Murdoch and James Moody with the manslaughter of 1,500 people.
Regards,
Inger
George Behe
Member
Inger wrote:
>..... George, I believe it
>is very possible that Fleet and Lee made comments to people on the
>Carpathia that they had given warnings to the bridge prior to the final
>call (reports vary slightly, so either they were telling different
>versions, or the people hearing the story added their own errors in
>relating it, or the reporters garbled it - all are possible).
Hi, Inger!
I agree completely.
>However, a point to consider is that these men were not disinterested
>witnesses. They were male crew survivors - bad enough. They were also
>the lookouts on duty when the collision occured. Can you imagine
>explaining *that* little fact to the passengers?
>Repeating such stories under oath would, however, be another matter
>entirely. Hence the change in tales.
That is of course possible, and you might well be correct. However, it's just as possible that the lookouts changed their story under pressure from 'On High' (a scenario for which -- as you know -- there is circumstantial evidence.) Unless someone is able to uncover more evidence on the subject, though, it's a matter of our two alternate scenarios being "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other." Sadly, it's quite possible that we'll never know for certain which one of us is correct. (Who knows? It might even have been me.)
>From the material posted on this board and from my own discussions with
>merchant mariners (and my own experience sighting objects on dark nights
>at sea, limited though that experience is) any icebergs sighted under
>those conditions would have had to be very close to the ship.
No argument there. Regarding iceberg visibility, it would be interesting if someone would assess survivor interviews and determine how far away each lifeboat was in which specific crewmen saw Titanic's black silhouette after the ship's lights failed; we're almost certainly talking about figures in the hundreds of yards, but it would be helpful if someone were to do some original research on the subject. My guess is that the three 'early' icebergs would have been just as visible (or invisible) as was the Titanic after her lights failed.
>For
>Murdoch to pass not one but *three* and not alert the Captain would be
>beyond recklessness, even under the normal (read: 'occasionally
>hair-raising') standards in the mercantile marine of the era.
As you say, recklessness was accepted as a matter of course in those days . Murdoch was instructed to let Smith know if he had any doubt about the ship's safe operation, so whether or not Murdoch decided to alert Smith was completely dependent on how confident Murdoch was in his *own* ability to keep the ship safe. (You've emphasized to me in the past that Murdoch was a very confident officer, so it can't be denied that it's possible he might have unintentionally 'overreached' himself that night.) Unfortunately, all we know for certain is that the ship didn't slow down.
> The risk - ...... - of damage to the new ship on her maiden
>voyage outweighed the benefits to be derived from beating the Olympic's
>maiden voyage crossing time.
No argument there. Prudence dictated that Titanic's officers should have considered reducing the ship's speed at 11 p.m. -- the time at which ice was *expected* to appear ahead of the ship. (After all, Murdoch must have known that Titanic risked striking the very first iceberg she encountered -- which is exactly what happened according to the 'accepted' scenario.) The fact that the ship didn't slow down shows that *somebody* must have been pretty confident in Titanic's ability to avoid icebergs and decided that a post-11 p.m. speed reduction was completely unnecessary. ("Let's wait until things get unacceptably hairy before we slow down.") Needless to say, it was a very poor decision that cost a lot of people their lives.
>I find your theory interesting, but second hand reports of the lookout's
>comments....... are insufficient to permit me
>as a researcher to readily charge William Murdoch and James Moody with
>the manslaughter of 1,500 people.
I have not "readily" made such charges -- all I've done is gather together some interesting historical information and point out that the information *might* be true. Since neither of our two interpretations of these events is impossible, Inger, it is to be hoped that other researchers will at least take the trouble to actually *research* the subject before they dismiss either interpretation as impossible; indeed, any ironclad judgements rendered in the *absence* of such new information are just subjective opinions expressed with vigor -- and that isn't good enough.
By the way, Inger, I don't charge Moody with anything, since for all practical purposes he was a non-entity in the scenario in question.
All my best,
George
>..... George, I believe it
>is very possible that Fleet and Lee made comments to people on the
>Carpathia that they had given warnings to the bridge prior to the final
>call (reports vary slightly, so either they were telling different
>versions, or the people hearing the story added their own errors in
>relating it, or the reporters garbled it - all are possible).
Hi, Inger!
I agree completely.
>However, a point to consider is that these men were not disinterested
>witnesses. They were male crew survivors - bad enough. They were also
>the lookouts on duty when the collision occured. Can you imagine
>explaining *that* little fact to the passengers?
>Repeating such stories under oath would, however, be another matter
>entirely. Hence the change in tales.
That is of course possible, and you might well be correct. However, it's just as possible that the lookouts changed their story under pressure from 'On High' (a scenario for which -- as you know -- there is circumstantial evidence.) Unless someone is able to uncover more evidence on the subject, though, it's a matter of our two alternate scenarios being "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other." Sadly, it's quite possible that we'll never know for certain which one of us is correct. (Who knows? It might even have been me.)
>From the material posted on this board and from my own discussions with
>merchant mariners (and my own experience sighting objects on dark nights
>at sea, limited though that experience is) any icebergs sighted under
>those conditions would have had to be very close to the ship.
No argument there. Regarding iceberg visibility, it would be interesting if someone would assess survivor interviews and determine how far away each lifeboat was in which specific crewmen saw Titanic's black silhouette after the ship's lights failed; we're almost certainly talking about figures in the hundreds of yards, but it would be helpful if someone were to do some original research on the subject. My guess is that the three 'early' icebergs would have been just as visible (or invisible) as was the Titanic after her lights failed.
>For
>Murdoch to pass not one but *three* and not alert the Captain would be
>beyond recklessness, even under the normal (read: 'occasionally
>hair-raising') standards in the mercantile marine of the era.
As you say, recklessness was accepted as a matter of course in those days . Murdoch was instructed to let Smith know if he had any doubt about the ship's safe operation, so whether or not Murdoch decided to alert Smith was completely dependent on how confident Murdoch was in his *own* ability to keep the ship safe. (You've emphasized to me in the past that Murdoch was a very confident officer, so it can't be denied that it's possible he might have unintentionally 'overreached' himself that night.) Unfortunately, all we know for certain is that the ship didn't slow down.
> The risk - ...... - of damage to the new ship on her maiden
>voyage outweighed the benefits to be derived from beating the Olympic's
>maiden voyage crossing time.
No argument there. Prudence dictated that Titanic's officers should have considered reducing the ship's speed at 11 p.m. -- the time at which ice was *expected* to appear ahead of the ship. (After all, Murdoch must have known that Titanic risked striking the very first iceberg she encountered -- which is exactly what happened according to the 'accepted' scenario.) The fact that the ship didn't slow down shows that *somebody* must have been pretty confident in Titanic's ability to avoid icebergs and decided that a post-11 p.m. speed reduction was completely unnecessary. ("Let's wait until things get unacceptably hairy before we slow down.") Needless to say, it was a very poor decision that cost a lot of people their lives.
>I find your theory interesting, but second hand reports of the lookout's
>comments....... are insufficient to permit me
>as a researcher to readily charge William Murdoch and James Moody with
>the manslaughter of 1,500 people.
I have not "readily" made such charges -- all I've done is gather together some interesting historical information and point out that the information *might* be true. Since neither of our two interpretations of these events is impossible, Inger, it is to be hoped that other researchers will at least take the trouble to actually *research* the subject before they dismiss either interpretation as impossible; indeed, any ironclad judgements rendered in the *absence* of such new information are just subjective opinions expressed with vigor -- and that isn't good enough.
By the way, Inger, I don't charge Moody with anything, since for all practical purposes he was a non-entity in the scenario in question.
All my best,
George
Michael H. Standart
Member
George, What historical evidence? Show me a detailed, EXACT, and well documented premonition which became public knowladge BEFOR the accident, and we'll have something to investigate. Until then, what we have is folklore and nothing more. Interesting perhaps for understanding the cultural phenomenon surrounding the Titanic, but useless historically.
As to the lookouts claiming to have seen three earlier bergs, I beleive Inger did a decent job covering some of that ground, but I have to ask, how much time have you spent at sea? BY that token, I mean professionally. Ten of my twenty years in the Navy were spent at sea. I can tell you from firsthand experience, that on a moonless night, it's VERY difficult to see much of anything beyond slightly varied shades of black and it's extremely difficult to see objects in the water unless your practically on top of them. Even starlight isn't all that useful...better then nothing...but barely.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
As to the lookouts claiming to have seen three earlier bergs, I beleive Inger did a decent job covering some of that ground, but I have to ask, how much time have you spent at sea? BY that token, I mean professionally. Ten of my twenty years in the Navy were spent at sea. I can tell you from firsthand experience, that on a moonless night, it's VERY difficult to see much of anything beyond slightly varied shades of black and it's extremely difficult to see objects in the water unless your practically on top of them. Even starlight isn't all that useful...better then nothing...but barely.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Similar threads
