Ghost Stories

[George Behe]

Michael Standart wrote:

>George, What historical evidence?

Hi, Michael!

Evidence stemming from a familiarity with specific Titanic passengers and whether or not those passengers' 'premonitions' might have been caused by long-held superstitions, a bad night's sleep, indigestion or some other mundane cause. (You'd be surprised by the things that present-day family members know about their 'Titanic ancestors.') Although failure to discover any mundane causes does not necessarily mean such causes didn't exist, a failure to even *research* the subject and just *assume* that mundane causes existed is simply not in accordance with accepted historical procedure.

>Show me a detailed, EXACT, and well
>documented premonition which became public knowladge BEFOR the accident,
>and we'll have something to investigate.

The subject is easily capable of being researched in the manner I've just described. Although this procedure cannot prove that any particular incident was truly psychic in nature, it *can* prove that the incident had a mundane origin (which is an equally valuable thing to know.) I've never claimed that *any* of the cases I've researched were *undoubtedly* psychic in nature, but -- once again -- I dismiss out of hand unresearched claims that *all* such incidents *automatically* had mundane origins.

Michael, you've already made it clear that you'll never give credence to psychic phenomena without a 'pre-dated document,' and I've made it equally clear that I don't place any stock in blanket dismissals that lack historical research to back them up. That being the case (and since I'm not trying to 'convert' you anyway), I again suggest that we simply agree to disagree. Deal?

>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.

None professionally, but a wee bit of time recreationally (and plenty of time on the Great Lakes -- which are just as dark on a moonless night as any ocean.)

>.....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.

I agree, and I've already acknowledged as much. However, your statement is still pretty vague; we know the iceberg was close -- but *how* close?

There were plenty of professional seamen in Titanic's lifeboats, and my suggestion that we utilize their professional estimates of how far away they could see the blacked-out Titanic would be an excellent way for us to *quantify* the visibility in mid-Atlantic on the night of April 14/15, 1912. This is something that (to the best of my knowledge) has never been done before, and it would be fertile ground for a serious researcher to follow up on. (Bill Wormstedt, does this project sound like it might interest you? If time permits, that is -- I know you have your hands full at the moment.)

All my best,

George

 

[Dave Billnitzer]

Excuse my coming into the discussion mid-stream, but what aspect of the three iceberg theory is giving readers trouble? Is it the suggestion that Titanic was already in among the icebergs by 11:40, or that she may have sighted some bergs prior to the fatal one, but did not slow down with that knowledge in hand?

I think there's little doubt that Titanic was already well into the danger zone by the time of the collision.

As for steaming full speed even after sighting icebergs, the Carpathia seems to have done exactly that while on the way to the rescue -- although with the added "benefit" (for lack of a better word) of knowledge of the Titanic's accident. (I don't want to digress into the questions about the reliability of the Carpathia's journey, but I think we all know that differing accounts tell of the Carpathia's zig-zagging through the ice, some at full speed, others accounts at half speed.)

The point is that the Carpathia's officers felt confident enough to steam successfully through approximately the same region where the Titanic failed - sighting icebergs "right and left" if you believe Rostron's and Bisset's accounts. Why should the Titanic not have done the same thing up to the point of the collision - but inadequately prepared and with tragically different results?

Walter Lord hinted at this in TNLO when he said the wonder was that she steamed into the danger zone as far as she did, without coming to grief sooner.

I am not saying that I am convinced that the lookouts sighted bergs prior to 11:40, but there is enough for me to seriously consider it; at the very least, I don't rule it out. I find it harder to believe that between 11:00 and 11:40 they did not pass any icebergs, or that they collided with the very first one on their path. Whether they *sighted* any bergs up to that point... well, as I say, I don't rule it out.

My two cents.

- Dave Billnitzer

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

George said:

>There were plenty of professional seamen in Titanic's lifeboats, and my suggestion that we
utilize their professional estimates of how far away they could see the blacked-out Titanic would
be an excellent way for us to *quantify* the visibility in mid-Atlantic on the night of April 14/15, 1912. This is something that (to the best of my knowledge) has never been done before, and it would be fertile ground for a serious researcher to follow up on. (Bill Wormstedt, does this project sound like it might interest you? If time permits, that is -- I know you have your hands full at the moment.)
<<<

Yeah, I'm pretty full at the moment - and at least for the moment, smart enough to beg off on this one.

Getting back to the possible earlier icebergs - I agree 100% with Dave B's last two paragraphs. Two cents I can afford!

 

[Michael H. Standart]

George, you're right that I won't give credence to psychic phenomenon. Not without hard peer reveiwed scientific evidence to back it up, so it's best that we just leave it alone.

As to the professional seamen in the lifeboats, how meny of them were actually in a position to know? That's a decidedly thorny area of inquiry and some of the witnesses were not always reliable.( A point which Dave Gittens made in his comments on Whiteley.) Having been a professional seaman myself, I am well aware of the rumor mongering that goes on 'tween the decks, a lot of which is started by people trying to make themselves look like they know more then they actually do. Fleet and Lee were in the best possible position to know, in that they were actually on watch, and they didn't see the berg until the ship was too close to do them any good.

Other factors to consider when dealing with the question of visibility must necesserily include how much light other potential witnesses were exposed to. The people on the bridge and in the crows nest would have been far enough from it not to be dazzeled by it. However, the Titanic was well lit, even at that late hour, and bright light absolutely kills night vision...and it can take up to half an hour for ones eyes to recover from that. White light is the worst...and it's one of the reasons a ships bridge will be illuminated by dim red lights when navigating at night if any lights are used at all. On every ship I've been on, the only illumination came from a very dim blue light above the chart table...which was turned off when it wasn't needed, a few instruments, and the glow of the radar screen.

Been there, done that. You can try to experiment with this one yourself. Get back out onto the lake at night with no moon. Get well away from any city lights to give your eyes time to adjust. At some point, stare, even for a few seconds into a bright white light, like what you would see if you were looking into one of the Titanic's public rooms, and then look back out awy from the light. Better yet, have the whole boat lit up...like the Titanic was, and try seeing even a few yards beyond the boats side, much less a hundred or so. You won't be able to.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Pat Cook]

Just a note and a question.

I always found it a bit 'telling' that (I believe I read this in Lord's TNLO but may have to look it up after this) when the Carpathia was racing to pick up survivors, some 6 icebergs were spotted (in the first 2 hours or so) - but not first spotted by the lookouts in the crow's nest. They were seen by others positioned, say, in the 'eyes' of the ship and on the bow and such.

Also, while I have your ears, pursuant to a project I am working on, if ANYone can tell me the names of the lookouts on the Carpathia I would be MOST grateful and heap great accolades upon your knowledgeable heads.

Best regards,
Cook

 

[Dave Gittins]

Actually, Rostron's evidence is that the bergs were spotted by the officers on the bridge, not by the lookouts. The main officers were Rostron himself and James Bisset, the others being busy directing the seamen. Luckily very few bergs were in the way and Carpathia was much slower than Titanic and possibly handier. Even so, she nearly hit a berg at the very end.

To understand what happened you have to forget all films and drawings. The berg was not the gigantic thing it's often shown as. The night was dark beyond the experience of most people. Behind all the theorising is a simple fact. You can't see in the dark!

 

[George Behe]

Michael Standart wrote:

>As to the professional seamen in the lifeboats, how meny of them were
>actually in a position to know? That's a decidedly thorny area of
>inquiry and some of the witnesses were not always reliable.

Hi, Michael!

IMO, it's not as thorny an area as you might think. Many (or even most) crew occupants of the lifeboats were asked (at the inquiries) how far away their lifeboats pulled from the Titanic before she sank. Each crewman gave an estimate whose accuracy we have no real reason to doubt (since none of the lifeboats moved appreciably between the time Titanic's lights failed and the time she sank.) Many of the lifeboats were a long distance away from the ship, and their occupants could see nothing of the Titanic after her lights failed. Other lifeboats, however, were standing just a few hundred yards off from the ship's side when the lights went out, and many crewmen in those boats testified that they were still able to see the ship's black silhouette, observe the stern settle back into the sea after the breakup etc. etc. It should be a rather straightforward matter to note a crewman's pre-blackout estimate of how far his lifeboat was from the ship's side and then couple that estimate with whether or not the crewman was still able to discern the ship after her lights failed. We should easily be able to get a ball park figure of how far away a blacked-out object was discernable in the darkness that night, and these estimates would go a long way toward telling us exactly how far away from the ship an iceberg might have been detected.

> Having been a
>professional seaman myself, I am well aware of the rumor mongering that
>goes on 'tween the decks, a lot of which is started by people trying to
>make themselves look like they know more then they actually do.

The facts I'm looking for re: distances and observations were not bandied about between the decks, though, but were presented as testimony at the two inquiries. There's a world of difference.

>Fleet
>and Lee were in the best possible position to know, in that they were
>actually on watch, and they didn't see the berg until the ship was too
>close to do them any good.

Again, though, these are just generalities; I'm looking for *specifics* that are well within the ability of a serious researcher to find the answers to.

>Other factors to consider when dealing with the question of visibility
>must necesserily include how much light other potential witnesses were
>exposed to. The people on the bridge and in the crows nest would have
>been far enough from it not to be dazzeled by it. However, the Titanic
>was well lit, even at that late hour, and bright light absolutely kills
>night vision...and it can take up to half an hour for ones eyes to
>recover from that.

Absolutely true. However, all that means is that a crewman's ability to see the blacked-out Titanic from his position in a lifeboat would have to be regarded as a worst case scenario; that is, even with bedazzled eyes crewman A was able to see the blacked-out Titanic and observe her breakup at a range of (say) 400 yards -- which would suggest that an iceberg would be visible at *at least* that distance to a crewman whose night vision was intact. (Don't forget that Captain Rostron's officers were able to spot icebergs near the Carpathia even though their own eyes were undoubtedly dazzled by the Roman candle signals that were being burned on Carpathia's bridge as she neared the disaster site.)

Pat Cook wrote:

>I always found it a bit 'telling' that (I believe I read this in Lord's
>TNLO but may have to look it up after this) when the Carpathia was
>racing to pick up survivors, some 6 icebergs were spotted (in the first
>2 hours or so) - but not first spotted by the lookouts in the crow's
>nest. They were seen by others positioned, say, in the 'eyes' of the
>ship and on the bow and such.

Hi, Pat!

That's true. Rostron said (BR25444) that about 75% of the time his officers spotted potential obstacles before the lookouts did (whether by night or by day.) However, Rostron does not imply that his lookouts *never* saw those obstacles -- he just says that the officers beat them to it three quarters of the time. (Naturally, this also means that the lookouts beat the officers the remaining quarter of the time.)

>Also, while I have your ears, pursuant to a project I am working on, if
>ANYone can tell me the names of the lookouts on the Carpathia I would be
>MOST grateful and heap great accolades upon your knowledgeable heads.

Unless you happen to stumble across a newspaper interview with the lookout, I'm afraid there's not much chance of our ever learning his name; Carpathia's ship's articles do not break down the crewmen's positions with that degree of finery.

Take care, old chap. Nice to see you here.

Dave Gittins wrote:

> The night was
>dark beyond the experience of most people. Behind all the theorising is
>a simple fact. You can't see in the dark!

Hi, Dave!

Nevertheless, Captain Rostron testified (BR25422-25424) that every one of the icebergs that Carpathia passed in the darkness was first spotted at a range of between one and two miles. Visibility that night was not nearly as attenuated as it has been made out to be in this thread.

A few concluding remarks regarding the thread in general.....

Since icebergs could be seen at a distance of between one and two miles that night, and since there is not the slightest doubt that Titanic had begun passing outlying icebergs after she traversed 49W, the possibility that Titanic's lookouts may have seen three icebergs a mile or two (or less) from the ship prior to 11:40 p.m. is not nearly as unlikely as has been alleged (very insistently) in this thread.

I urge everyone with an interest in this particular topic to do some independent research of their own; don't take my word for what might have happened during the half-hour prior to 11:40 p.m., and don't take other folks' word for what *didn't* happen in the half-hour prior to 11:40 p.m. -- do some independent research and come to your own conclusions.

In the words of Wilson Mizner, "I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education."

All my best,

George

 

[Mike Herbold]

Here's a quote from Bisset's "Tramps and Ladies" as the Carpathia was heading towards the crash-site:

"At 2:45 I sighted the glimmer of a starbeam in an iceberg three-quarters-of-a-mile ahead of us on the port bow. I immediately reported it by singing out to the Captain, who was standing by the helmsman. He reacted promptly in a seamanlike manner, altering course to starboard and reducing to half speed.

"Then he strode out to the port wing of the bridge to make his own observations, and, when he had sighted the berg and saw that we had avoided it with ample clearance, and that no other obstruction was in sight, he brought the ship back to her former course and moved the engine-telegraph again to Full Speed Ahead."

This quote is interesting from two standpoints that are relevant to this conversation:
1) an iceberg was sighted three-quarters of a mile ahead, in the same weather conditions as experienced by the Titanic; and
2) Carpathia was southeast of Titanic's last position and had already seen it's first berg, which verifies George Behe's point about the Titanic being well into the icefield when she hit her last iceberg.

Bisset, who spent his entire life at sea and was eventually a Commodore of the Cunar Line, goes on to say:

"Arthur Rostron, responsible for the safety of 1,035 souls in his own ship, but knowing that more then 2,000 people were in peril twenty miles away, and that every minute was precious, drove the Carpathia at forced full speed, in darkness, into the icefield in which the Titanic had met with disaster!

"In taking this calculated risk, he relied on seamanship and sharp lookout, which had apparently been neglected in the Titanic. He knew - as every shipmaster of experience gained in the North Atlantic, and to the south of Cape Horn, knew - that icebergs are visible by starlight half-a-mile ahead in clear weather. That allows sufficient sea room in which to avoid them.

"In the Carpathia we had a dozen pair of eyes on the lookout for bergs. It happened that I sighted the first one we met with, because I had ben specially told off for that purpose, and I had keen eyesight, and I knew what to look for, and I was keyed up to abnormal alertness; but, if I had not sighted it, the men in the crow's nest, or on the bows, or on the other wing of the bridge, would assuredly done so in time to sing out a warning to the men in the wheelhouse who were standing on the alert for that very warning.

"The fact that the Titanic had struck a berg in calm weather on a clear night meant one of three things - insufficient lookout; responses too slow from her bridge; or that the big vessel at her full speed had not quickly enough answered her helm to avoid a collision."

Later on, Bisset's recollections continue:

"Within a few minutes we sighted another berg. We steered around it as before, and then sighted another, and another.

"Captain Rostron later stated his earnest belief that the "hand of God was on the helm of the Carpathia" during that half hour when, in eight more miles at forced full speed, we zigzagged among the bergs, clearing them with sufficient room as we sighted them one after the other.

"At 3:15 we were within twelve miles of the Titanic's wirelessed position. At intervals we sighted green flares, and our course was steered now on bearings from these, but we could not spot the big liner's masthead lights, or any other lights of her superstructure or hull. At 3:30 there were numerous bergs surrounding us, and small growlers of ice grinding along our hull plates."

It seems to me that the Titanic had to be bumping into ice long before she hit the big one, and was just lucky that she lasted as long as she did, and didn't hit a fatal iceberg earlier.

 

[George Behe]

To Mike Herbold:

Thanks very much for your contribution to the discussion, Mike. As always, your postings are impeccably researched and contain little-known -- but crucial -- information that bears on the subject at hand.

Just what the doctor ordered.

Take care, old chap, and thanks again.

All my best,

George

 

[Michael H. Standart]

George, I beleive the range estimates will have to be regarded as suspect to a certain degree, if only because depth perception also suffers at night. I don't doubt that the lifeboats put a respectful distance between themselves and the sinking ship, I certainly would if I was in their place. It beats having to face the threat of being sucked down or being clobbered by wreckage, but 400 yards? Possibly, perhaps very probably, but I would take any range estimate with a slight grain of salt because of the depth perception problem.

Of course, all that this really means is that the lookouts had better be on their toes when on watch. Unfortunately, the people on the Titanic dropped the ball one time too meny in their navigation of the ship and paid the price for it.

Cordially,

Michael H. Standart

 

[Dave Billnitzer]

Hi Mike Herbold:

Thanks for taking the time to post from Bisset's book. In addition to illustrating how his ship did sight numerous bergs that night, it also vividly portrays the difference between the careful confidence exhibited by Rostron's crew ("keyed up to abnormal alertness") and the behavior of the Titanic's crew (whether one wants to call it "overconfidence," "recklessness" or "1912 standards" or something else).

If the Titanic story and all of the continuing research has taught me any one lesson over the years, it is to be careful using such words and phrases as "impossible" or "it didn't happen that way..." or "that couldn't happen."

- Dave Billnitzer

 

[Dave Gittins]

I don't intend to get too involved in this bunfight but I'll make a few comments.

Firstly, there is a strong element of "wise after the event" about Bisset's book and it contains several errors and contradictions of the 1912 evidence. Like all the rest, it must be read and compared.

Second, I'm prepared to admit that some very large bergs may have been seen against the night sky at distances of over 500 metres. However, Rostron admitted that one was not seen at under 400 metres. This was a fairly small one and so was the berg that sank Titanic. I thoroughly agree with Mike Standart about the difficulty of judging distances at night at sea, or by day, for that matter.

Third, even assuming Bisset is right about small ice hitting the sides of Carpathia, (and personally I think that's just a little poetic licence) there is no reason to assume that Carpathia experienced the same conditions as Titanic. She was approaching the icefield from a different angle. None of those who went into the sea when Titanic sank mention swimming among small ice, which surely would have been long remembered. More concretely, there is no small ice and no nearby icebergs in photos taken from Carpathia. The hard evidence is that Titanic hit an isolated berg and never reached the icefield.

Fourth, to accept stories of bergs being seen earlier, we have to assume blundering incompetence on Murdoch's part, deafness in Hitchens, Olliver and probably Boxhall and the ability of Fleet, Lee and the others to keep quiet about it for the rest of their lives. And what about anybody else who was on deck at the time and within earshot of the bell? This is a classic job for Occam's razor.

 

[George Behe]

Michael Standart wrote:

>George, I beleive the range estimates will have to be regarded as
>suspect to a certain degree, if only because depth perception also
>suffers at night.

Hi, Michael!

I agree with you, although I think the distance estimates that Mike Herbold and I quoted re: Carpathia and iceberg visibility can be regarded as *approximately* correct.

>I don't doubt that the lifeboats put a respectful
>distance between themselves and the sinking ship, I certainly would if I
>was in their place. It beats having to face the threat of being sucked
>down or being clobbered by wreckage, but 400 yards? Possibly, perhaps
>very probably, but I would take any range estimate with a slight grain
>of salt because of the depth perception problem.

My mention of 400 yards was just an example, but I believe it represents a sort of 'middle ground' re: the distance between the lifeboats and the sinking ship. If I recall correctly, one or two crewmen testified that their own lifeboats had pulled almost a mile away from the Titanic before her lights failed.

>Of course, all that this really means is that the lookouts had better be
>on their toes when on watch. Unfortunately, the people on the Titanic
>dropped the ball one time too meny in their navigation of the ship and
>paid the price for it.

I agree completely.

Dave Gittins wrote:

> The hard evidence is that
>Titanic hit an isolated berg and never reached the icefield.

Hi, Dave!

Titanic never reached the *main* icefield, but she sure didn't strike an isolated berg. Take another look at the ice chart that faces page 1113 of the Senate Inquiry. At 49W Titanic began steaming south of (and roughly parallel with) a long string of outlying icebergs that had been sighted that same day by the Parisian, Mesaba, Paula and Athinai. This string of bergs gradually converged on Titanic's track, and at roughly 49.30W Titanic steamed right *through* a belt of outlying icebergs (sighted that same day by the Parisian, Athinai and Paula.) Titanic steamed an additional 3./4 of a degree of longitude before she ever encountered the fatal berg, and for that entire distance she was steaming *north* of (and roughly parallel with) another long belt of outlying icebergs that had been reported by the Parisian and the La Bretagne. In other words, Titanic was *surrounded* by outlying icebergs for most of the distance between 49W and the scene of the disaster, and she crossed **directly through** a band of those icebergs well before reaching the disaster site.

The only real question is whether or not any of those 'early' bergs were actually *seen* by observers on board the Titanic, and -- as I've mentioned -- comments made by Titanic's lookouts while on board the Carpathia suggest that they *may* have seen such bergs.

>Fourth, to accept stories of bergs being seen earlier, we have to assume
>blundering incompetence on Murdoch's part,

No, we just have to acknowledge Murdoch's confidence in his own ability to spot icebergs in time for the ship to avoid them.

>deafness in Hitchens,

That's not the case at all. Did you know there's evidence that Robert Hichens later admitted to having accepted White Star's offer of "a lifelong job with good pay" in return for his silence? See Don Lynch's "Titanic: An Illustrated History" (1992) as well as my own "Titanic: Safety, Speed and Sacrifice." (1997.)

> and the ability of Fleet, Lee and the others to
>keep quiet about it for the rest of their lives.

Not at all. There's evidence that Fred Fleet *also* later admitted to having accepted White Star's offer of "a lifelong job with good pay" in return for his silence. See Diana Bristow's "Titanic: RIP. Do Dead Men Tell Tales?" (1989).

> This is a classic job for Occam's razor.

No, it's just a matter of following wherever the evidence leads us.

Nefarious Dave Billnitzer wrote:

> In addition to
>illustrating how his ship did sight numerous bergs that night, it also
>vividly portrays the difference between the careful confidence exhibited
>by Rostron's crew ("keyed up to abnormal alertness") and the behavior of
>the Titanic's crew (whether one wants to call it "overconfidence,"
>"recklessness" or "1912 standards" or something else).

Hi, Nefarious!

"Negligence" is another term that comes to mind. The tragic thing, though, is that -- no matter *what* kind of behavior Titanic's officers exhibited on the bridge that night -- a lot of innocent people paid the supreme price for that behavior.

>If the Titanic story and all of the continuing research has taught me
>any one lesson over the years, it is to be careful using such words and
>phrases as "impossible" or "it didn't happen that way..." or "that
>couldn't happen."

If this current thread has taught us anything, Dave, it's that your words should be taken to heart by all serious Titanic researchers.

All my best,

George

 

[Michael H. Standart]

George, you woldn't happen to know how or where I could obtain a complete transcript of the US Senate investigation into the loss of the Titanic would you? You mentioned a chart of the ice feild which piqued my interest.

Unfortunately, the only transcript I have is the abridged version which was edited by Tom Kuntz. It's useful, but hardly good enough for our perposes here.

Re the ice feild; I don't know how far the Titanic got into the icefeild,( although in light of the events which occurred, I can safely say "too far".) To my knowladge, they weren't mapping and tracking ice feilds back then. Not reliably anyway.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Huffaker]

Most major univerisities, particularly those associated with law schools should have it. I found it in the archives with all the other congressional records. I have seen hard copies of the Senate transcript at UCLA, BYU and Cal State Northridge. They are probably also available on microfilm or microfiche. Be sure and check both the main library and the law school libraries.
David Huffaker