Sound of rockets

[Michael H. Standart]

>>The putative 3rd ship though, is criminal. It was within 2 -4 miles, underway, and LEFT the scene.<<

Was it? Really? Eyewitness accounts are hardly consistant here and it's known that the Californian weathercocked around during the night. As deceptive as visual conditions are at night, it's not hard to see how such a ship could be seen or mistaken for being underway even though she wasn't.

In any event, what does matter is not so much the question of whether or not the socket signals were heard. What matters is that they were seen.

In that context, if it can be argued that the Californian had no excuse, certainly a ship which was closer didn't.

Keep in mind I'm not hostile to the possibility of a ship in between. (This is one of several areas where Captain Lord's critics and I part company). It doesn't take away from his accountability in this matter but it does mean that if Captain Lord belonged in the defendant's dock, he should have had some company.

That includes the two idiots who were on watch as well as anybody on watch on the proposed mystery ship.

 

[Simon Koncz]

Indeed, if the third ship actually existed, which is not proven. I havent read the newest research on the subject, but I am scrambling to catch up on the latest thinking.

Very sane post as always Michael.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I'm afraid that there's not a whole lot to go on in terms of new research. If there was a third vessel in between, it's a cinch that any documentation they would have had to the effect...read that to mean the scrap log...would have "accidentally" gone over the side!

 

[Jim Currie]

Perhaps we are all missing an essential point?

When you think of the word 'rocket', what image is conjured up in the mind's eye?

I suggest a bang! whoosh! 'bang' then 'twinkle twinkle little stars'!

That would most certainly not be what might have been seen by anyone seeing and/or hearing Titanic's distress SIGNALS - not rockets. To all intents and purposes, these were star-shells not rockets. The path of a rocket is marked by an incandescent trail.

Place yourself on a pitch dark flying bridge. You are pacing up and down to keep warm. It is freezing cold so you are shrugged down into the high lapels of your bridge coat with your cap tugged down over your ears. Something catches your eye - a brief flash in the sky - not I hasten to add - a bunch of bright twinkling stars that hang briefly in the air before being extinguished. It's a shooting star!

Five or six minutes later, you see more visual activity near the mast-head light of a ship close-by. You have not been staring in that direction but have enough time to raise your binoculars, focus them and see what looks like little white stars low down on the horizon beside the mast-head light of the other ship. Incidentally that's the only reference you have with regard to the height of anything above the horizon or indeed the horizon itself.
You have seen rockets before but you have never seen or heard a star shell or distress signal fired before so what do you think you are looking at? No idea! So you keep your mind open as well as watching in the general direction. Meantime. you think about distress signals and company signals and any other kind of signal you either know or have heard about. As time goes on and still no repetition, you begin to forget about what you saw or think you saw. Five minutes can be a long time to stare in one direction when you are supposed to be watching all round. That's one of the reasons why distress signals should be sent up at short intervals!
However, 6 minutes later, your vigilance is rewarded; you see another of these signals but no sound. That's three of them now. What the heck is it? They can't be being sent up for nothing but they are not by any means being sent up at short intervals and there is not a single sound.
You continue to watch.

In the next 18 to 20 minutes, you see 2 more, a total of 5; time to indulge in time honoured practice of 'when in doubt get the Old Man out'.
You whistle down to your superior and tell him what you are seeing. You know he is concerned about the other vessel since he had enquired about her 10 minutes before you saw the first signal.
Your boss tells you to use the signal light and call the nearby vessel up. This is a reasonable order since the other ship is obviously within signalling distance.(important!)
As ordered, you start calling him up using the International Code letters AA..AA..AA..
While signalling, you focus your eyes in the direction of the other ship's red side light. You know that if he replies to your call, you will see - just above that light- a long flash - the morse letter 'T' meaning he has seen your call signal and is ready to receive a message from you.
You watch in vain.

You are then joined by your Watch Apprentice - Gibson who you order to continue calling the other vessel with the signal lamp.
During the next 20 minutes, the other vessel seems to send up 3 more signals but completely ignores Gibson's signals. Meantime, you have been, as previously instructed, watching for movement in the other vessel. You do this by frequently taking bearings of her by the standard compass. You know that if she moves at all, her bearing will change.
Before the last signal is seen, your vigilance is rewarded - the other vessel's bearing starts to change - she is underway.
Oh well! you think inwardly - 'Panic over. She is obviously not too distressed if she can move off under her own steam. Obviously there was some reason for her signals but it seems they have sorted-out their problem and are off again.
I'll keep an eye on her for a while'.

Eventually the other vessel disappears from sight. You remember the Captain's orders that you were to report to him if the other ship replied to you signals. It had not done so but never the less, you send the Apprentice down to put the Captain's mind at rest. You would guess that since the report was that the other ship had moved off, the Captain would be able to get some rest in the knowledge that there were no other vessels near his ship that might cause a problem.

So how does this relate to the sound of rockets and the mystery ship? Simple! They did not hear a sound.
'Ah but' I hear the words of the doubter, ' the other ship was too far away for the sound to be heard'. I've got news for you - 4 to 7 miles is by no means too far away! I have heard human conversation across 4 miles of still water on a flat calm night and can prove it.
However, there's another indication as to how far the other ship was from Californian and it can be found in the evidence given by Officers Stone & Groves and Apprentice Gibson. Each one of them tried to contact the other ship by flashing signal light and failed - not because the other ship was too far away but because it simply did not acknowledge their attempts at contacting it.

To understand the connection between signalling and distance you have to know a bit about the process.

The night signalling apparatus on board merchant ships, principally lights which could be used for transmitting messages by International Morse Code, had limited effectiveness. That effectiveness diminished with distance.
We know that Lord referred to his signal lamp as being powerful but even a powerful lamp has limitations if it is of the all-round type.
I do know that many ships were fitted with such lamps. They were mounted on top of a short mast - usually at the front of the upper bridge and were used in conjunction with a portable morse key. However, seldom were those things very efficient at distances more than 5 miles and an officer would have a hard job using one if he was on his own. Lord would not have instructed Stone to call the other vessel by light if he thought the latter would have a problem contacting him by the ship's morse lamp. Indeed, in that case he might well have told Stone to call the wireless operator.

The problem with all those who 'know better' is that they do not understand the process by which information progresses from unimportant to life threatening. In this case, The captain of Californian received the information as described. he went through the usual processes of finding out. The processes he normally pursued. He was told that a ship seemed to be
having a bit of bother. He therefore told his officers to find out what it was.
Now if the ship in bother was as near as has been suggested then its officers could clearly see another ship nearby signalling to them. If the 'bother' was dire distress and in the process of sinking it would only be reasonable to assume that the officers of the problem ship would tale any offer of assistance. Need I labour the point?

 

[Simon Koncz]

Good post Jim. Good "reality check" stuff.

Im confused about the signalling lamps. I fear I am thinking Aldis lamp. Were the signalling lamps in use of an earlier and/or different design?

 

[Senan Molony]

Yes, excellent post, Jim.

But let us ban the phrase "ship in between" as it suggests a line of three, and that the middle ship was visible to the outer vessels.
This is a complete misinterpretation.
There were two pairs of vessels, over the horizon from one another. Nothing "in between" after that... all that is necessary is for Titanic rockets from over the horizon to rise low in the direction of the Californian's nearby visitor.
Unseen, and hull down from the northern pair, the Titanic and the Mystery Ship can relate to each other any way they like.
So let's please lose this lazy and misleading phrase...

Anyway back to SOUND -

Third Officer Herbert Pitman, might be able to throw some light (ha ha) on the subject.

Which is likely to be louder — the Titanic blowing off steam, or the Titanicfiring socket signals in lieu of guns?

Senator Fletcher: If there had been a vessel that night within five miles of the Titanic, could not her [Titanic’s] whistle have been heard that distance?
Pitman: No; but you could have heard her blowing off steam at a far greater distance than you could hear the steam whistle.
She [Titanic] was blowing off steam for three-quarters of an hour, I think, and you could hear that much farther than you could hear any steam whistle.
Sen. Fletcher: Then it would stand to reason that if there was a ship or vessel of any kind within a distance of five miles it ought to have heard the blowing off of the steam?
Pitman: She could have heard that 10 miles that night.
(US p.315)

Ten miles. Steam... which is a short excerpt from my book "Titanic and the Mystery Ship" which is now out in a brand new edition with the History Press.

Ghastly sounding-off I know...

Own trumpet blown over ten miles... etc etc

The arrogance of the man! (But Simon was asking)

 

[Simon Koncz]

I need a copy Senan. I need it now.

seriously, the whole point about sound and distance, seems to be a crucial factor. We seem to be reaching a tentative consensus that the Californian was at a greatly further distance than has been accepted previously. If she was at 12-15 miles distance ( I suspect it was of that order, though I know I will be slayed for that idea), practical difficulties, the speed of the Californian, raising steam, the extent and thickness of ice surrounding her, comes into play.
She may well have arrived to merely forshadow the role of the Mackay Bennett,as a rescue vessel for the dead. Or at best, merely carried out the role of the Carpathia, a few hours later.
Are we agreed that Titanics sockets, the steam release would have been heard at a far greater distance than has been mooted? As C heard nothing, this merely increases her distance.

Im beginning to suspect that Stone and Gill had poor distance estimating skills, and badly underestimated the distance of the Titanic. If it was inded the Titanic.

Let the slaying commence

 

[Martin Cooper]

Captain Jim, I congratulate you Sir, and would agree with Senan in saying "an excellent post", indeed brilliant. Regards, Martin.

 

[Jim Currie]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! (dunts head three times in the floor).

Simon:

The Aldis lamp was a hand-held portable, battery operated day light signalling lamp which was pointed in the direction of the receiving ship. It had a round reflector mirror mounted on a horizontal axle behind the bulb. When the light was switched on, its very powerful, concentrated beam initially pointed downward toward the deck. By operating a trigger, connected to the mirror, the beam could quickly be reflected up or down to and from the horizon.
By raising the beam and holding for just over a second the receiver would see a a 'dash' of light. Quick operation of the trigger produced a 'dot' at the receiving end. In fact the device was really a small, portable version of the naval reflector signalling searchlight which was in use long before Titanic went down.

The other fixed light I mentioned was as shown in this dreadful sketch:

This light could be seen all round the horizon so it's message could be read by everyone but it was useless during the daytime.
When the Aldis lamp was supplied to merchant ships, they used them almost exclusively thereafter - day or night. Obviously they had limited use for sending distress messages in so much as only one vessel at a time could read them.

Senan:

"Which is likely to be louder — the Titanic blowing off steam, or the Titanicfiring socket signals in lieu of guns?"

Perhaps the 'bang' of the signal would have the edge? I am reminded of the old Edinburgh joke about the One o'clock gun.

At exactly 1pm every day, they fire a gun from the ramparts of Edinburgh castle. Just before that time, an old man would sit in a particular seat in the park below the castle. He had done so every day for 20 years.
On a particular day, they ran out of charges for the gun so could not fire it at the usual time. However, at exactly one-o'clock, the old man suddenly looked up and asked 'what was that?'.

OK the story has a tenuous connection to your question but I like it - so there!

My point is that the sharp report of the explosion was designed to concentrate minds. Whereas, the noise of the steam, while doubtless ear-piercing at close range, might not have conveyed quite as much a sense of urgency at a distance. It might just have confused the issue since it is hard to judge direction without a visual aid.

 

[Senan Molony]

(Of course the bang of the "gun" - or lieu thereof - would be louder, Jim. It was a question for effect...)

But another point that cannot be emphasised enough… Captain Lord was not told of rockets alone and out of the wide blue yonder.

He was told of the ship in view, which was perfectly fine, apparently showing lights.

At 12.35 Lord whistled up the speaking tube and asked Stone if the other steamer he had asked to be kept informed about had moved. Stone replied that she was on the same bearing and that he had called her up with no result.

He’s now put on his mettle again about that steamer. Ten minutes later, about 12.45, Stone wrote that he observed ‘a flash of light’ [not a rocket] in the sky ‘just above that steamer.’ He thought nothing of it, ‘as there were several shooting stars about.’ (Probably some missed Titanic rockets).
Shortly after he observed ‘another (flash of light) distinctly over the steamer which I made out to be a white rocket.’

Gibson says Stone told him that he, Stone, now called Captain Lord. But he is doing so in the context of reporting information about that steamer that his Captain is interested in. He is not reporting rockets alone and per se.

Stone
7829. What did you communicate to him (Captain)? – I communicated that I had seen white lights in the sky in the direction of this other steamer, which I took to be white rockets.

Lord says he was told of only one rocket, as is consistent with Stone’s earliest account, that he saw a flash of light, and then ‘another,’ the second one determined to be a rocket.

Both were rockets obviously, but nobody can recall the exact conversation. Yet this is not all that Stone told Lord. Perhaps the original conversation was something like this —

Stone: ‘That steamer I was calling up, Sir. She did not answer the Morse lamp. But there was a flash of light just above her, and now there has been a rocket distinctly over her. She has also now commenced to go away from us.’

The latter part — her being underway - is attested by Stone from the earliest. And is expanded on by his Captain.

Lord
“At a quarter past 1, he [Stone] said, ‘I think she has fired a rocket.’ He said, ‘She did not answer the Morse lamp and she has commenced to go away from us.’ I said, ‘Call her up and let me know at once what her name is.’
(US p.729)

We can see the product of what Stone said on his Captain’s mind. Everything is linked to that steamer, the one that is so perfectly fine it is now underway. Everything is linked to the attempt to communicate with her. Stone is not reporting rockets simplicitur, let alone distress rockets.

The flash and the rocket, singular, are pyrotechnics that are bundled in a large package of information about the ship in view, including her getting underway, that is passed to Captain Lord.

Stone later says in evidence in London
7829. What did you communicate to him? – I communicated that I had seen white lights in the sky in the direction of this other steamer, which I took to be white rockets.

But this is not what he wrote at his leisure in his first account, a written statement at sea, which talks of a flash and soon after another, made out to be a rocket, ‘above’ or ‘over’ this steamer, rather than ‘in the sky.’

Furthermore, it is not the total of all that he said, not by a long chalk.

8048/9. When did you send word to the Captain that you noticed her steaming away?
Stone – At 10 minutes past 1. I reported to the Master that she was altering her bearings, which was the same thing.

Here, at 8049, we have Stone calling the Master because the steamer is beginning to steam away, altering her bearings. This is exactly what the Master wanted to know about. The two rockets/flashes/one of each/ are a feature of the larger context.

Lord
6917. What did you think he was sending up a rocket for? – I thought it was acknowledging our signals, our Morse lamp. A good many steamers do not use the Morse lamp.

Now Lord has not been told by Stone of any noise, such as one would get with a socket distress signal at the level of separation between his command the ship in view. He learns of only a display, which might be a goodbye by a leaving vessel.

The conversation was more than Stone originally wrote. Or indicated in staccato replies to particular questions.

We can see elsewhere that Lord was thinking about the lights or rockets that in his mind were shown by the vessel in view that was now reportedly underway.

It is highly likely that Lord was told by Stone that the two pyrotechnics he had seen were ‘above’ or ‘over’ this steamer — therefore extremely low — because of the following:

Stone
7870. What was his (Captain Lord’s) answer? – He asked me, ‘Are they Company’s signals?’
7871. What was your answer? – I said, ‘I do not know, but they appear to me to be white rockets.’

[Gibson, incidentally, independently formed a ‘company signals’ interpretation:
7697. What did you think they were sent up for? – I thought they were some private signals.
7698. Who told you they were private signals? – Nobody told me.]


WHY did Lord ask if they were company signals?

Lord said (6937) “We sometimes get these company’s signals which resemble rockets; they do not shoot as high and they do not explode.”

Stone saw the rockets as “low-lying” and “half the height of the masthead light.” The first white flash in the sky had been “immediately above this other steamer.” (7832).

It is possible there was another question to him from his Captain: ‘Did you hear any noise?’ To which the answer would have been ‘No.’ Or the lack of noise would have been implicit in Stone’s report about seeing lights without his making any reference to bangs.

But whatever Stone said about the illuminations, he clearly indicated their attachment to the general environment of the vessel in view. He did not say rockets had soared into the sky.

Lord asked about company signals (‘they do not shoot as high’ [as distress rockets]) because Stone had somehow conveyed to him that they were low — which corroborates what Stone wrote in his earliest account, and which he expanded upon at the enquiries.

Low-rising company signals were used to identify steamers. Lord thinks the low pyrotechnics are an attempt to communicate by a vessel that may not have a Morse lamp because she has not replied that way.

Low-rising Titanic rockets, which rose very high and with a very loud bang in another theatre of the ocean are seen but misinterpreted because of their soundlessness by reason of distance, low height by reason of distance, and linkage to a perfectly fine steamer in view in that part of the ocean where the Californian lies.

Two pairs of ships, hull down and unseen by one another, in different theatres.

.

 

[Senan Molony]

>>He was told that a ship seemed to be having a bit of bother.<<

On a point of accuracy, he was expressly never told a ship seemed to be having a bit of bother. Or anything like it.

Neither, Jim, is there any reason to believe that Stone contacted the Captain after five rockets, quite the contrary. Stone never specified the quantity preceding his call-down in evidence.

But when Gibson came up, he told him of five fired, which is not the same thing.

Gibson’s own original statement, like that of Stone composed for the Captain while the Californian was still at sea, says explicitly that Stone contacted the Captain after the second rocket, not the fifth. It is all we would expect from what common sense would tell us:

Gibson (Original statement, April 18, 1912):

“Arriving on the bridge again at that time, the Second Officer told me that the other ship, which was then about three and a half points on the starboard bow, had fired five rockets and he also remarked that after seeing the SECOND ONE, to make sure he was not mistaken, he had told the Captain, through the speaking tube and that the Captain had told him to watch her and keep calling her up on the Morse light.”

Gibson in evidence
7476. Now, I just want to get what happened after that. You have told me that the Second Officer said to you that the ship had fired five rockets? – Yes.
7477. Did he tell you anything else about what he had been doing while you had not been there? – He told me that he had reported it to the Captain.
7478. Did he tell you what the Captain had instructed him to do? – Yes.
7479. What was it? – To call her up on the Morse light.
7480. Did he tell you whether he had tried to call her up on the Morse light? – Yes.
7481. Had he? – Yes.
7482. What had been the result? – She had not answered him, but fired more rockets.

Gibson is told by Stone of five rockets fired. Stone had reported to the Captain, who instructed him to Morse the steamer. But look carefully at the last question question (7482).

This clearly suggests Stone called the Captain after verifying by rocket number 2 that a definite rocket had indeed been fired. The ship had then fired more rockets (2+3=5) — and Stone had not taken further action.

.

 

[Jim Currie]

I totally agree with you that according to Gibson, Stone's first report to Lord was that he had had seen what he thought was a rocket - one rocket. That confirms what Lord said he had been told.
If what Gibson wrote was correct then Stone would not have gone into a whole rigmarole about flashes etc but would have reported a specific happening. Captains do not like to be called with the script of a soap opera.

Don't take what I write too literally Senan. 'A bit of a bother' is just me trying to be cool.

 

[Senan Molony]

Should really just stitch this one into the record as another who saw no light, as the lookouts saw no light prior to impact, and whose non-reporting to the bridge meant it wasn't there.

QM Alfred Olliver had been out and about. He saw the iceberg, walking across the bridge to the starboard side to watch it sliding aft. He probably had another good look around then.

Senator Burton: Did you see a light?
Olliver: On any other ship but the Titanic?
Senator Burton: Yes.
Olliver: I saw lights in the boats, being displayed by the boats.
Senator Burton: I mean of another boat?
Olliver: I saw what I thought was a light; but then I could not say whether is was a proper light or whether it was a star.
Senator Burton: Did you see this before the ship struck?
Olliver: No, sir; after we were in the boats.
Senator Burton: You did not see it when you were on board the Titanic?
Olliver: No; I did not.

And of course Fleet keeps on saying it, just as we all know those who preach the opposite (that it must have been there because their preferred candidate was stationary) repeatedly fail to show up and address the clear testimony against their nostrum -

FLEET

Senator Smith: I wanted to know whether you saw ahead, while you were on the watch, on the lookout, Sunday night, after the collision occurred or before, any lights of any other ship?.
Fleet - No, sir.
Smith: You saw no lights at all?
Fleet - No, sir.
Smith: Did you see any rockets fired from the deck of the Titanic?
Fleet - Yes, sir; when we were in the boat and when we were on the deck before I went in the boat.
Smith: But you saw no lights ahead that indicated the presence of another vessel?
Fleet - No, sir.
Smith: Or while you were in the crow's nest?
Fleet - No, sir.

(US p. 328)

Senator Burton: You saw some light on the horizon that night?
Fleet - Not on the lookout, sir.
Burton: Not on the lookout?
Fleet - The only thing we saw was the iceberg. We had no [ship’s] light on that watch.
Burton: You did not see this light of which mention has been made until you got into the lifeboat?
Fleet - No, sir.

(US p. 358)

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Sennan

Are you sure your last post is in the right place? This thread is about the sound of rockets!

However, I'll reply.


If the lookouts who we are now being told were tip top guiltless individuals who apparently ( according to the very latest information) saw the ice berg in pitch darkness when it was at least a mile and a half away, then they could most certainly have seen the lights of a ship at or close to extreme range. That, among other things was the reason they were up there. They did not sign on as iceberg -spotters.
It follows that all those on this and any other site must 'bite the bullet' and admit that if there was another ship nearby - and the same people keep pointing us to survivor evidence which proves it - then that ship was not there before the time of impact- was probably at least 17 miles away at time of impact - and possibly had a speed of 10 to 12 knots. If they don't believe this, let then work it out for themselves.
That night, three men on Titanic were sweeping the horizon with their eyes (one with the help of night glasses). Any stationary ship showing navigation lights and a few accommodation lights forward of Titanic's beam would have been spotted by all of them as soon as the lights came into visible range. Perhaps not immediately but certainly long before the distance between the two ships was reduced to 10 miles. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding.
What is patently criminal is that quite a few, if not all, of the members of the UK Inquiry completely understood this but chose to ignore it.

Incidentally, the quoted evidence in your post makes the idea of a conspiracy between the lookouts, officers and owners a bit 'pie in the sky' as does the suggestion by others that their warnings were ignored by the OOW.

I'm not sure where your Observation concerning QM Olliver fits-in to this thread either.

Since you wrote : "He saw the iceberg, walking across the bridge to the starboard side to watch it sliding aft. He probably had another good look around then", I presume you're still pushing the - Olliver on the port side - opinion?


I'll comment on this as well: ( forgive me those who frown on this jumping practice).

First, I can't find any evidence that Olliver did in fact arrive on the port side of the bridge at the time of impact.
Second, if he did; then he certainly would not have gone over to have a look. Principally because at the moment he arrived at the entrance to the bridge, he did not know they had hit an iceberg or what part of the ship was involved. Even the captain did not have that intelligence!

No, he would have returned to his station beside QM Hitchens in the enclosed wheelhouse. To do this, he would have turned right and gone directly into the enclosed wheelhouse by it's port doorway. He would not need to go anywhere near the starboard side.

See here:

Forgive the rough sketch.

I've seen Olliver's port side arrival claim elsewhere in these pages. It is, as far as I'm concerned, pure, unsupportable speculation.

 

[Senan Molony]

Re: non-reference ot the sound of rockets...

We had a "Titanic: The Mission" programme on Channel 4 on Monday night and they recreated the Cotton Powder Company signal... but without the crucial element, the humungous bang.

I suppose it was safety concerns, etc. So the Tonite charge, equivalent to a 12-pounder was dropped and they sent up a silent rocket to 600ft at night.

It popped a couple of prepared magnesium stars... the really interesting thing (assuming a good correlation to 1912) was the very short life of the stars. Certainly all over in about five seconds... unlike modern distress flares, red, which last for two minutes and gain much higher altitude.

Quite capable therefore, of being mistaken for shooting stars at a great distance.

We certainly agree on the rank stupidity of the very idea that so many Titanic personnel, including both lookouts, could have failed to see the lights of a stationary ship.

Those who persist in that belief are Titanic-deniers, and should recognise the fact. They are entitled to believe anything they want, of course... if they can't be convinced, how can they be stopped?

Like your adolescent. If he wants to hate the people who won't hate his hate figure, then all he is doing is thoroughly advertising his mentality...

I'm not going to cross swords with you on Olliver - I am not aware of previous schools of thought on this, just formed my own from his testimony.

He says he was attending the standard compass (mis-rendered as "standing compass" in the US transcript) and this was on the compass platform, behind the second funnel, not the first funnel as you show.

He says he walked forward from 3-strikes to impact.

Coincidentally Boxhall says the same. Boxhall was on the starboard side.

But neither Boxhall not Olliver mention the other guy... if they were both walking forward on the same side, it would be the type of thing to come out in evidence.

For this simple reason I conclude Olliver walked forward on the port side. It is not a matter of producing evidence to support it. It just seems self-evident.

He does say "the grinding sound was before I saw the iceberg," which would be consistent with a port side walk.

He's also human - he's going to go straight out to starboard to have a look at this as soon as the cry goes up that they've hit a berg.

Olliver's evidence seems very straightforward to me. He's answering questions, not grandstanding.

They might have asked him more specific questions, or followed up to get the specifics...

But he is pretty clear about the slow ahead -

Senator Burton: Were the engines reversed; was she backed?
Olliver: Not whilst I was on the bridge; but whilst on the bridge she went ahead, after
she struck; she went half speed ahead.
Q. The engines went half speed ahead, or the ship?
Olliver: Half speed ahead, after she hit the ice.
Q. Who gave the order?
Olliver: The captain telegraphed half speed ahead.
(...The ship was "almost stopped" when he did so, he said later)
Q. How long did he go ahead half speed?
Olliver: Not very long, sir.
Q. One minute, two minutes, five minutes?
Olliver: I could not say the number of minutes, because I had messages in the meantime.
Q. But you know he went ahead half speed?
Olliver: Yes, sir; I know he went ahead half speed.
Q. Then he stopped?
Olliver: I could not say whether he stopped. The ship was stopped when we took to the boats.

He seems a plain, unvarnished type of a guy. If he was in fact walking forward on the starboard side (unprovable, and what does it matter, anyway) it means Boxhall was lying as to where he was... because I just imagine Olliver saying "I could see the Fourth Officer just ahead" or "Mr Boxhall was a few steps behind me arriving on the bridge" if this were the case.

.