Ghost Stories

[Tad G. Fitch]

Dear Michael Standart,
Hello? How are you? Good I hope. I read your messages, regarding your complete disbelief in all the alleged premonitions relating to the Titanic disaster, and felt the need to share some further information relating to one such event. This event was recalled independently by several persons.

Prior to boarding the Titanic, third class passenger Eugene Daly had a dream that the ship was going to sink. He told his mother this *before* he boarded the ship at Queenstown, but she wrote it off as just a nightmare. Later, while on the ship, Eugene Daly told his cousin Margaret Daly and his traveling companion Bertha Mulvihill that he had dreamt that the ship was going to sink. On Sunday night, April 14, 1912, Eugene told Margaret and Bertha that the ship was going to sink that night. Bertha Mulvihill told of this event in an interview in a Providence newspaper. This account is one of those that is contained in George's excellent book on this very subject. After the sinking,and prior to the Carpathia's arrival in New York, Eugene Daly's name was one of those listed as a survivor in the press lists. His mother refused to believe that he had survived. In a mention in an Irish paper on April 17, 1912, it was reported that Eugene's mother did not believe that her son had survived, and that the name on the list was someone else, because he had "thoughts of disaster." Later, on April 27, 1912, a letter from Eugene informing his mother that he was all right arrived in Ireland. The letter was printed in several Irish papers, and in one article, it is again mentioned that until receiving the letter, Eugene's mother believed that he had perished, even after seeing the list of survivors. Bertha Mulvihill's account in which she mentions Eugene's apparent premonition appeared in the April 20, 1912 edition of the Providence Daily Journal.

Michael wrote:
"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."

This event would fit all of your requirements as listed above.
1) Eugene told his mother of his dream, and she mentioned this "very publicly" as you say on April 17, 1912, *before* the Carpathia even reached New York. His mother disbelieved that he Eugene had survived due to his dream.
2) Eugene told Margaret Daly and Bertha Mulvihill about his dream while onboard the ship, and according to Bertha, stated the ship would sink that night on April 14, 1912. This was printed in the April 20, 1912 edition of the Providence Daily Journal.
3) When Eugene's letter arrives in Ireland, his mother's initial disbelief of his survival is mentioned in several April 27, 1912 Irish papers.
4) Several family members of Eugene Daly and Bertha Mulvihill have mentioned the story of the alleged premonition.

Michael wrote:
"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."

Best to leave it alone? That is hardly what is best. While none of the above evidence of Eugene's alleged premonition can prove that psychic phenomenon exists beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, this, and the countless other examples of unexplained incidents, both Titanic related and not, give more than sufficient cause for a thorough scientific investigation into such phenomenon. To ignore it would be ignorant, and that is what the large portion of the scientific community does. Anytime anything paranormal or even slightly unexplained comes up, scientist do not take it seriously and avoid it like the plague, yet they will spend millions of dollars researching the sexual habits of sand fleas. Now I ask, which is more important to mankind? Sand fleas, or the untapped and ununderstood depths of the human mind? The only reason scientists shy away from the unexplained is for fear of hurting their own reputations, because the subject is taboo. Of course, nobody took Coperincus or Galileo seriously at first either.

You wrote to George:
"If that works for you, fine and dandy, but it never works for me and never will."

How much evidence would it take for you to consider even the slightest possibility that some sort of psychic phenomenon exists or that perhaps the iceberg that the ship struck was not the first sighted? While I am not saying that I believe everyone who claims to be able to read minds or have premonitions, I feel ample evidence exists for further investigation. Could Eugene Daly's dream have been a *very* coincidental nightmare? Possibly, but extremely unlikely given that he guessed the exact night that the ship would sink. Several other examples, many of which George examines in his book, remain unexplained no matter how you look at it. If that alone does not give reason for an open mind and further investigation, what does? If you are willing to except versions of events based on *one* eyewitness account(IE: Smith's words upon entering the bridge), then how can you not keep an open mind regarding the premonitions or the possibilty of other bergs being sighted before the fatal one, which have more evidence to support them? I am thinking that it has something to do with the fact that such beliefs go against common knowledge or the generally excepted views. People don't have trouble accepting what Captain Smith's words were upon entering the bridge, or the helm orders, but sudden become shy when it comes to events that are not commonly known or accepted, even if they have more evidence going for them.

George wrote:
"By the same token, blanket dismissals of these accounts without specific historical evidence upon which to base those dismissals don't work for me."

Me either George. I don't understand such dismissals.
Best regards,
Tad Fitch

PS: Michael, I suggest that you read George's book "Safety, Speed and Sacrifice", given that you are unfamiliar with most of the evidence regarding the possibility of previous icebergs. I think that you will find it very enlightening.

 

[Mike Herbold]

Michael:
The full text of the 1912 Senate Hearings that were reprinted in 1998 should still be available through abebooks.com or amazon.com. It's printed by Congressional Information Service, Inc., ISBN number is 0-88692-429-4, and it's 1163 pages long. Price is $100. The spine reads:
WRECK
OF THE
STEAMSHIP
TITANIC
62d CONGRESS
2d SESSION
1911-1912

For the same price, you can also get the complete 972 page facsimile of the original 1912 Wreck Commisioner's Court report, often referred to as the British Inquiry. The ISBN number is 1-873-162-707. The spine on this one reads:
LOSS
OF THE
S.S. "TITANIC"
COURT OF
INQUIRY
REPORT
EVIDENCE, & C.
1912

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

To Michael H. Standart:

The US Inquiry is online at mwis.net/~breaktym/ - the whole damn thing. Also at the same site is the British Inquiry.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Tad, the problem with all of this is that it's hearsay based on more hearsay several times removed. Besides which, April 17th is hardly befor the fact. I need something that has survived close scientific examination and plenty of peer reveiw. None such exists, so no consensus will be reached. Not here anyway. Best to agree to disagree as Mr. Behe suggested and move on.

By the way, I never said there were no previous icebergs. What I questioned was the ability and credibility of some witnesses to see such, particularly at night...and if you read through the whole strand, you'll see that I'm not the only one, and you'll also know why I questioned that assertion. I spent twenty years in the US Navy, half of that time at sea. I know from first hand experience just how difficult it is to see anything in a flat calm on a moonless night, as well as how it screws up depth perception and how exposure to bright lights would degrade night vision. Some of the crew may have seen some of the earlier bergs as claimed. Some however were in no position to know, but weren't reluctant to make up stories.

To Mike Herbold and Bill Wormstedt, thanks for the info on how to get the transcripts as well as the link. I bookmarked the link, and I'll keep it handy until I can afford to buy the hardcopy.
Cordially,
Michael H.Standart

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo, George and all!

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.)

In the form of a hearsay report from none other than Hichens, who - it is claimed - said that he was bribed to cover up unspecified events that occurred on the bridge prior to the collision. I always found it curious that, having gone so far as to intimate that he had privileged knowledge and was a ‘player’ in a conspiracy, he didn’t go the whole hog and reveal what it was he was conspiring to conceal. Perhaps his imagination gave out at that point.

I find it very curious, however, that no one seems terribly interested in exploring the potential motivations of the lookouts, about whose actions we have only two witnesses...themselves. For example, do you know of any research that has been done into their background? I’ve done some, and have found at least one curious little fact pertaining to how much experience at least one of them had. I’m currently tossing up whether or not I should make copies of the document available to interested parties - but then, given the lack of interest in the lookouts to date, I wonder if it’s even worthwhile. Much more interesting to blame the officers. Now - I make the above remarks with a strong caveat. I do not propose any sort of shifting of ‘blame’ to the men in the crows nest - to do so would be as wrong as a wholesale allegation of manslaughter against the men on the bridge. I’m simply suggesting other avenues of reearch that have as yet gone unexplored...although some of Reade’s side remarks about the lookouts (and Fleet in particular) are very interesting indeed.

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.)

Or, going out on a very tenuous branch...it might (God forfend) be me ;-)

My guess is that the three 'early' icebergs would have been just as visible (or invisible) as was the Titanic after her lights failed.

Difficult to say. I went through Rostron’s testimony at the Inquiries prior to posting this, and it seems that even with all his lookouts posted he had some difficulties with consistently sighting bergs…some were not sighted until daylight.

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.

What I’ve emphasised is not Murdoch’s confidence(although that is one quality of an officer, and indubitably he possessed it). What I’ve emphasised is his competance. Recent research I’ve done, and which has been shared with me by some remarkable researchers in the field, has reinforced this idea. He was generally held in high personal regard, and universally held in very high professional regard (even by those who had quibbles with aspects of his personality). My sources are both pre- and post-disaster.

I’ve never come across an account of Murdoch as supremely confident to the point of ignoring not one, but three warnings. What did he have to gain? Would he have earned Smith’s praise if, after Smith came up on deck, he cheerfully noted ‘By the way, Sir, I’ve been dodging ice all night?’ Smith, one suspects, would have been far less than thrilled to know this had been occurring. Murdoch stood to gain nothing by doing so (and risked censure from his Captain). However, he stood to loose a good deal - if an accident occurred…even just a scrape…he would have to explain why he chose not to alert Smith. Smith and Murdoch had worked together for years, and from the accounts I have seen (unpublished)had a very good personal and professional relationship. Smith was sleeping not far away, and had left instructions to be awakened if there was any degree of doubt. If you’ve just had three ice sightings from the crows nest, that qualifies as doubt.

However, this depends a good deal on our estimation of Murdoch’s character. And, as we’ve established in the past, our interpretations of the man differ ;-)

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.)

Monday morning quarterbacking dictates a lot of actions that should have been taken and were not (extra lookouts might have been a start). However, they often (not in all instances, but often) kept up speed until ice was sighted. And how are you definining 'encountered'? The icebergs were there, as testimony from survivors who saw them with the dawn indicates. How close does one have to be to a berg before it is an 'encounter'?

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.

Glad to hear you say it. And I note that I have not dismissed your ideas - I just don’t adopt them.

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.

I was operating from my recollection of T:SS&S which is, along with most of my collection, some 12,000 miles away and unseen for over a year. As I recalled it (and I could be wrong, in which case I’m sure you’ll point it out ;-) ), you referred to officers (plural) ignoring the ice warnings from the crows nest, so Moody was implicated in your charge of manslaughter. Good to hear, though, that the poor bloke was merely a ‘non-entity’.

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.

Advice I take to heart! As you know, I have never accepted anyone’s conclusions without question -not the inquiries, eyewitnesses accounts, newspaper reports, hearsay recollections, or published works...not even your own ;-) This observation is not specifically in regards to your three berg theory, either - I subject all accounts, primary and secondary, to the same close scrutiny. In a field like popular Titanic studies, where commentators range from the driest academics to the glibbest popular ‘historians’, this is a necessity. This has resulted in many hours spent ruining my eyes on microfilm and fiche, time and money in accessing official documents, writing endless letters and trekking all over the UK to seek material. No doubt a good deal of this work and rechecking was utterly redundant. On the other hand, I’ve found factual errors in sources I would have considered completely reliable, and turned up fascinating new angles that have not been properly investigated, if they’ve been investigated at all.

That’s what makes it all interesting, isn’t it?

"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.

There's that plural use of 'officers' again!

Yes, many people perished as a result of decisions taken on the Bridge. James Moody and William Murdoch were among them. You know, however, that there is more to the story than that. Those actions and decisions were not made in isolation…and to place the blame with them as is implied in the above remarks is a reductive view that diminishes our understanding of the disaster and the events that gave rise to it. I’m always drawn to Frank Bullen’s remarks published in 1900 - he, an experienced merchant mariner, expressed great surprise that there were not more accidents, given the pressures placed on men and ships on the North Atlantic run to keep to timetables regardless of the perils of the route. The Titanic’s officers had taken precautions when made aware (or at least partially aware) of conditions they would encounter. These precautions were not adequate, although they were typical. The disaster that many had predicted (psychically or not!) came to pass. The Titanic’s officers were neither fools nor incompetents, but under their command a long sequence of factors would come to a tragic culmination. It is those factors I’m interested in understanding - not viewing the end result in isolation. Remembering, always, that the key witness - William Murdoch - never had a chance to speak in his own defence.

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

Does this mean I can really and truly be a serious Titanic researcher because I follow Dave’s admonition to us all? Or is my questioning of established sources and published writers simply pig-headed contrariness?

Regards,

Ing

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo, Dave!

Excuse my coming into the discussion mid-stream, but what aspect of the three iceberg theory is giving readers trouble?

A few points, actually…the fact that in adopting this scenario we are relying on second hand reports from two witnesses who were not disinterested observers, and who under oath gave a different version of events. The fact that no one has questioned the motivations of the witnesses in purportedly giving such versions of events. The necessity of assuming that, if such a theory is correct, Murdoch (a respected, competent mariner) would risk his career by not alerting the Captain of three warnings of bergs that were close to the ship and must have occurred in a comparatively short time. The necessity of assuming that Fleet, Lee, Olliver, probably Boxhall and Hichens were bribed…and took the secret to their graves, other than vague comments by Hichens and possibly Fleet reported - once again - secondhand (and of course the necessity of bribing or otherwise silencing anyone else they spoke to aboard the Carpathia) And that all of the above lied under oath. Why, after the WSL ceased to exist, did Fleet not tell the full truth in his subsequent discussions with the researchers he spoke with? Goodness knows, he didn’t owe anything to the defunct line. Besides, where is the evidence of Fleet having benefited in any way from his testimony? He simply went back to sea in the same capacity as he had served before.

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.

Oh, I’ve seriously considered it. I don’t dismiss any theory out of hand. Nor have I ruled it out. But - alternatively - I don’t have to accept a theory I find unconvincing. If further evidence is presented I will reconsider and re-evaluate, as I do with all conclusions. However, my own research has turned up interesting little facts that might shed further light on the characters and motivations involved in this angle of the disaster, and it might well take me in an entirely different direction to an entirely different set of conclusions. But that’s teasing in the style of a Victorian fan-dance...

Regards,

Ing

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo, Michael -

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.

A good point to consider. Be grateful, though, that other rumours were actively investigated and debunked at the time...otherwise, the stigma of intoxication while on duty might well have been levelled at the officers on the bridge by subsequent researchers!

Regards,

Inger

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo, Dave again!

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."

That must be why I avoid using these phrases ;-)You will note that I carefully avoid certainty on the most controversial issues, however strong my own opinion in these matters. It’s why I said I find George’s theory ‘interesting’, and have not dismissed it, although I remain unconvinced by his arguments.

I make this statement with the proviso that I find one other conspiracy theory unlikely in the extreme - the Olympic/Titanic switch. Oh - and I find the wonder-dog Rigel’s reported actions “impossible”.

Regards,

Ing

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo, Dave G -

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

Excellent point. And I’d add another - the chief witnesses in this are Fleet and Lee, as Murdoch never had the opportunity to defend himself.

Were Fleet and Lee disinterested witnesses?

No.

Regards,

Inger

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo, Tad!

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

You responded:

Best to leave it alone? That is hardly what is best. While none of the above evidence of Eugene's alleged premonition can prove that psychic phenomenon exists beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, this, and the countless other examples of unexplained incidents, both Titanic related and not, give more than sufficient cause for a thorough scientific investigation into such phenomenon. To ignore it would be ignorant, and that is what the large portion of the scientific community does.

Michael can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you haven't taken Michael’s remarks in the correct context when you take him to task for saying it is 'best' to leave it alone. He wasn't suggesting that reported paranormal phenomena be unexplored, he was actually echoing George’s wish to end the debate in this thread, as it was apparently not going to be resolved:

That being the case (and since I'm not trying to 'convert' you anyway), I again suggest that we simply agree to disagree. Deal?

I’ve avoided the discussion of psychic phenomena (ostensibly what this thread is about - go figure!) because my own feelings on the matter are somewhat mixed. This angle of studies is difficult, as such ‘phenomena’, if legitimate, go publicly unreported until after the disaster. There are many examples reported after the fact - Senan’s book reports quite a few ‘supernatural’ events. Anecdotal evidence suggests a strong tradition of premonition - Junger includes such accounts in ‘The Perfect Storm’ regarding the Andrea Gail (also ‘visitations’ after the event). While I’ve spoken to individuals who claim to have seen crisis apparitions etc., I don’t have the knowledge or the methodology to establish whether this is a psychic or psychological phenomena.

As a side note, I’ve found some passages in a young crewman’s letters that strike a chill to the marrow…when read with hindsight. At the time, they were just single throwaway lines, inconsequential in and of themselves. After 14/15 April 1912, they become significant indeed. One of these didn’t hit me the first time I read it, but it stood out in sharp and bitter irony when I began working through the material later. The one or two people I’ve read it to agree - although written with laughter, there is a edge to the words speaking of ‘floating palaces’ and ships that can’t sink, given this particular man’s fate. But this is a meaning imbued entirely in retrospect - there is nothing in the context of the letter to suggest that it was anything other than a light-hearted joke.

If I might interrupt your...erm...strong advocacy of the cessation of funding for studies into the reproductive habits of sand fleas…let me just take issue with this line:

how can you not keep an open mind regarding the premonitions or the possibility of other bergs being sighted before the fatal one, which have more evidence to support them?

Keeping an open mind does not mean one has to accept your interpretation of evidence, or anyone else’s. I do not have to accept the probability of George’s theory to have an ‘open mind’. I haven’t dismissed it, but I do find it rather less likely than you, George or Dave do.

I am thinking that it has something to do with the fact that such beliefs go against common knowledge or the generally excepted views. People don't have trouble accepting what Captain Smith's words were upon entering the bridge, or the helm orders, but sudden become shy when it comes to events that are not commonly known or accepted, even if they have more evidence going for them.

Snort! If you think that the helm orders are without controversy, you haven’t been following some of the various currents of debate in Titanic circles very closely! I’ve never been ‘shy’ about critically examining the canonical version of events, by the way.

Michael, I suggest that you read George's book "Safety, Speed and Sacrifice", given that you are unfamiliar with most of the evidence regarding the possibility of previous icebergs. I think that you will find it very enlightening.

I read it and found it interesting - particularly George’s material on speed. I remained unconvinced of the viability of his conclusion at the end, however. Might I make a suggestion too? For those interested in this field, I suggest they go beyond the books. Look for new material. Who knows...you may even seek out material beyond books and beyond newspapers? I suggest you start with the lookouts…you might find something interesting ;-)

Regards,

Inger

 

[Inger Sheil]

For the same price, you can also get the complete 972 page facsimile of the original 1912 Wreck Commisioner's Court report, often referred to as the British Inquiry. The ISBN number is 1-873-162-707.”

This can be ordered directly from the Public Record Office (PRO) in the UK through their website (being a big fan of the PRO, I like to support them at every opportunity). They’re marvellously efficient to deal with - it cost £100 to get to Australia, but they had it there incredibly swiftly and it’s a beautiful volume. Amazon was good for the Senate Sub-committee inquiry, although it took weeks to get down to Oz (this was a couple of years ago, perhaps it’s easier now). Although with all of this material on line thanks to some dedicated researchers, their main use to me now is making it convenient to lug along to work when I’m surreptitiously tapping away at various little projects - although, given the bulk of these volumes, ‘surreptitious’ is perhaps not quite the word to use

 

[Inger Sheil]

And that's tonight's erratic flurry of posts. I eagerly await the latest installments of the Behe, Billnitzer and Fitch tag team (you blokes should unionise...really you should ;-) )

Best to all -

Ing

 

[I M McVey]

George Behe wrote:
***For what it's worth, I think that any company that salvages over 5000
Titanic artifacts and exhibits only a tiny fraction of them (while insisting
that the company urgently needs to recover still *more* artifacts) has no
business being the so-called 'protector' of a historical site.***

Dear George,
I cannot agree more. Have RMSTI actually had the, err, ‘knackers’ to use the term ‘protector of an historical site’? If they have, it would be exceedingly laughable. ‘Exploiter’ is far more accurate.

Kind regards, I M McVey

 

[I M McVey]

Inger Sheil wrote:
****Going back to the original published crewlists derived from the crew agreements, the 'Pell' error seems to derive from Moody's own signature. He ran the 'P' of his middle initial into the 'M' of 'Moody', giving the signature the appearance of 'Pelloody' which is how it was originally reported in the press (snip)****

Dear Ing,

Having seen some of those crew agreements, I cannot stress enough how striking the effect his writing has on his name. I know what his proper
name is (or should be!), and yet, when you read his writing, some of them really =do= say ‘Pelloody’! I have since resolved to sign onto my ships with a very careful and clear signature from here on…

Kind regards, I M McVey

 

[I M McVey]

Michael H. Standart wrote:
***Kay, inspection hatches don't necesserily mean that anybody trapped inside a space can get out. I've seen plenty of them during my 20 years in
the Navy. Such covers leading into tanks and voids are typically bolted shut from the outside. The same is often true of hatches leading into storerooms. I don't know if this is the way the inspection hatches were constructed on the Great Eastern and I would like to see some engineering drawings or contemporary photos befor I accept anything as fact in this regard.***

Dear Michael,

I can support your statement from the point of view of the Merchant Marine. We have numerous hatches that allow inspection and access to voids (spaces in a ship, usually in the lower hull, that have no actual use); fuel, water, soil and cargo tanks, etc. These hatches are all bolted
from outside, with heavy bolts and nuts, and usually quite a lot of them, spaced closely together.

Mr Standart continued:
***Oh, and no, I don't buy into ghost stories or tales of premonitions of disasters. One never hears about those until AFTER the fact, so there's no way of knowing whether or not they were contrived. Such stories make or good
copy and color in the print media but are scarcely credible as history.***

I tend to agree here as well, though, to me, the most striking incident of ‘foreboding’ related to ‘Titanic’ is a letter Chief Officer Henry Wilde
wrote to his sister from the ship. As he died in the sinking, it certainly wasn’t a thought after the fact, and the details remain forever a mystery. He wrote words to the effect of, ‘I still don’t like this ship. There is
something queer about her.’ (Please, if someone has the proper quotation, post it? I am on board my own ship now, and have no access to books, notes, etc. You may find the quotation, I believe, in Geoffrey Marcus’s ‘Maiden
Voyage’.) I only wish he had given his sister more details of exactly =why= he didn’t like the new ship, and why he thought her ‘queer’.

Other crew reaction seemed to be delight (Violet Jessop, and what she reported about her fellow Stewards, as well), or just an adjustment to a new
routine, such as First Officer William Murdoch’s letter to his sister, where he reported they were ‘nearly ready for the road’, and his only real
complaint being, ‘The holidays are on down here + it takes me all my time to get men to work even at overtime rates…’ (The Easter holiday was on.)

The only note of serious tone from Murdoch was when he wrote his Father (a retired Master in sail) about the near-collision with ‘New York’, where he said they ‘very narrowly avoided doing she and ourselves serious damage, however, we did not touch her + I don’t think either the New York or Oceanic had any damage at all.’

But Wilde’s letter is the one incident of 'foreboding' that really stands out in my mind above all else -- even above the documented passenger misgivings, such as Eva Hart’s Mother. How unusual for a Chief Officer to express such
sentiments…

Kind regards, I M McVey