Lifeboats, Launch Times, List and Trim Parts 1 & 2

[George Jacub]

Sam, you wrote:
It's really hard to know what Scott actually witnesses, and that is one of the reasons I had not included anything from him in my two-part article.
Scott said that when he got to the boat deck he saw two aft boats left, in one of which someone was firing a gun. That was obviously No. 14 with Lowe shooting. You propose that the other boat was No. 10 and not No. 12, the lifeboat closest to Lowe's.

That idea is torpedoed by the evidence of able seaman Edward Buley at the Senate Inquiry:

"No. 12 was the last boat before me to be lowered, and Evans was one of the men that lowered that boat, and after he lowered that away I called him and told him Chief Officer Murdoch gave me orders to find a seaman and tell him to come in the boat with me, and he jumped in my boat."

You think Buley might have noticed someone in a lifeboat shooting a gun 30 feet away from him if that was the "last boat" before No. 10.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

So George, what two boats were "The only two left were on the port side, the after end of the ship" that Scott saw?:
A. 14 and 16
B. 14 and 10
C. 14 and 12
D. 12 and 10
E. some other combination

According to the impression given to the commission, it was A.
According to what Buley said it had to be D.

 

[George Jacub]

Scott saw boats No. 14 and No., 12.

5660. There are four aft on the port side. Do you remember which of them you saw?
- I know it was the two after-boats on the port side.

His attention was drawn to the four aft port boats.

"...one of the boats was where the Officer pulled a revolver out and shot it between the ship and the boat...: That was obviously No. 14. The shots were fired after No. 16 was launched.

That would leave 3 boats "aft on the port side." Scott was clear; he saw the two "after-boats". In other words, the two boats furthest aft in the line of four, one being No. 14 and the other, of course, No. 12. This is confirmed by Buley who said No. 12 was the boat that left last before his, No. 10.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Scott was clear; he saw the two "after-boats". In other words, the two boats furthest aft in the line of four, one being No. 14 and the other, of course, No. 12.

Hate to say this but the two boats furthest aft in the line of four were 14 and 16, exactly what the commission assumed he meant and said as much, which Scott did not deny.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Just in case someone's memory about the boat deck layout might be a bit faulty:

 

[George Jacub]

The British Inquiry operated on the belief that the lifeboats at the rear of the ship were launched from front to back starting with No. 10, then No. 12, then No. 14 and ending with No. 16. Therefore, when Scott said he saw only two boats, the aftermost on the ship, they assumed, wrongly, that the boats he saw were Nos. 16 and 14.
We know, now, that the aft port boats were launched back to front, starting with No. 16. When Scott said that he saw an Officer firing a gun at one of the two boats that he saw, he provided the evidence that identified the boat pair as Nos. 14 (where Lowe shot his gun) and No. 12. Lowe testified that No. 14 had started lowering when he fired a shot to deter potential jumpers. That means No. 16 was already down. And No. 10 was still on deck and not even in the davits, which leaves only No. 12 as the second boat seen by Scott.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The British Inquiry operated on the belief that the lifeboats at the rear of the ship were launched from front to back starting with No. 10, then No. 12, then No. 14 and ending with No. 16. Therefore, when Scott said he saw only two boats, the aftermost on the ship, they assumed, wrongly, that the boats he saw were Nos. 16 and 14.
We know, now, that the aft port boats were launched back to front, starting with No. 16. When Scott said that he saw an Officer firing a gun at one of the two boats that he saw, he provided the evidence that identified the boat pair as Nos. 14 (where Lowe shot his gun) and No. 12. Lowe testified that No. 14 had started lowering when he fired a shot to deter potential jumpers. That means No. 16 was already down. And No. 10 was still on deck and not even in the davits, which leaves only No. 12 as the second boat seen by Scott.

I'm getting real tired of this silly game George. Scott said there were only two boats left on the port side, one of which was the one with the officer who fired the shots, which means one boat had to be #14. Since #10 was still on deck, the last of the aft four boats to be lowered, then #10 had to be the second boat that Scott saw that was still left. Which means, if Scott is to be believed about what he said he saw and heard, then the last two boats (of the four aft port-side boats) had to be #14 and #10. You need to stop trying to spin this to fit your imagination.

 

[George Jacub]

Sam,
Wow. Given all the free lectures about proper research that you and your allies posted on this thread (#27, #30, #48, #64, #65, #66) I'm shocked at how you respond to being challenged with facts and hard evidence.

And you accuse me of having imagination? Wow, twice over. I consider that a badge of honour. Every researcher should bring imagination to the table as an invaluable tool. The ability to look at a problem and ask "what if" is a crucial talent. So, you're welcome.'

And before you ride off into the sunset, I'll leave you with still another bit of evidence that shatters your imaginative belief that the last two aft boats seen by Frederick Scott were Nos. 14 and 10 (!). It comes from Fifth Officer Harold Lowe and was delivered to the British Inquiry:

6580. Which one did you fill first?
- No. 14. I did not fill 16; Moody filled 16.
6581. You filled 14?
- Yes.
6582. Was Mr. Lightoller, the second officer, there?
- He was there a part of the time, and he went away somewhere else. He must have gone to the second boat forward.

Lightoller and Clench were in Lifeboat No. 14, taking the women passed in from the boat deck. When Officer Moody declared "no more" and prepared to lower the boat, Lightoller would have stepped back to the boat deck. Lowe did not report to Lightoller when he arrived at the aft boats, nor did he speak a word to him prior to his (Lowe's) leaving in No. 14. But he did see him in the vicinity. Just not lowering No. 12. He saw him there (likely passing from No. 14 to No. 12) and he saw him gone.
Lowe suggested that Lightoller "must have gone to the second boat forward", which was presumably a reference to No. 4. By the time of his appearance at the Inquiry, Lowe would have known that's where Lightoller went after leaving the aft boats. But he made absolutely no mention, and gave no hint, of seeing Lightoller next to him for five minutes lowering No. 12.

P.S, 'Wacky" does not mean what you said it means. Doesn't anybody own a dictionary anymore?

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I'm shocked at how you respond to being challenged with facts and hard evidence.

The overwhelming majority of your posts here (not to forget those blog comments elsewhere) provide "facts and hard evidence" all right, but of what is open to debate. Certainly, they have little or nothing to do with the Titanic or its lifeboats.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

facts and hard evidence

Facts are something that can be proved. Hard evidence is evidence that is verifiable. You have demonstrated none of these.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Facts are something that can be proved. Hard evidence is evidence that is verifiable. You have demonstrated none of these.

Agreed. In most of his posts here as well as on his (frankly dreadful) blog site, George tends to combine Inquiry testimonies and/or newspaper reports by survivors with his own completely ridiculous and outlandish conjectures and then claim that the latter are 'facts' based on the 'evidence' of the former. IMO, that methodology is a classic example of pseudo-research.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

 

[George Jacub]

Sam, I applaud your conversion to separating opinion from facts. Facts, like George Rowe's documented testimony at the Senate Inquiry that he saw a lifeboat "on the starboard beam" at "25 minutes after 12". For years you've been propagating the idea that Rowe actually put his watch back 23 minutes anticipating a time change, a "fact" invented by you and, for which, there has never been a shred of "hard" evidence. That hasn't stopped you from building an entire time-line based on this illusory concoction.

Facts are something that can be proved. Hard evidence is evidence that is verifiable. You have demonstrated none of these.

Are you kidding? Your "hard evidence" consists of 'Evans went from No. 16 to No. 12 and didn't stop at No. 14. Ergo No. 12 was launched before No. 14.' Wow. Rock solid, I say.

Arun. I cheer your belated discovery of "pseudo-research." For God-knows- how- long you've peppered threads on this forum with declarations of what fireman John Collins did and saw on the Titanic, based on some "interviews" you did with his daughter. That would be his daughter Mary who was born six years after the Titanic sank and who spoke to you 80 years after the sinking. She was, by your own words, "very difficult to elicit any information from." Nevertheless you've relied on this "research" to determine that Collins "is probably the only witness who is certain that First Officer William Murdoch did NOT shoot anyone or himself.."

 

[Arun Vajpey]

For God-knows- how- long you've peppered threads on this forum with declarations of what fireman John Collins did and saw on the Titanic

John Collins was in fact a scullion and so a member of the Victualling Crew and not a fireman. That apart, I frankly don't care about what someone like you thinks of my posts or research. Considering the kind of nonsense that you have been talking about for years - especially the mass shooting scenarios - I would rather that you disagree with me; I don't want to be seen on your side of the fence for any reason.

 

[Encyclopedia Titanica]

Let’s keep this friendly and to the point please, I feel too many personal remarks are creeping in… a sign that the thread has actually run out of steam? If not then please focus back on the subject. Thanks.