Sound of rockets

[Jim Currie]

Senan,

"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."

Here's what Olliver actually told the good Senator:

" [Olliver]I knew we had touched something.

Senator BURTON.
Just describe what that shock was.

Mr. OLLIVER.
I found out [by seeing it] we had struck an iceberg.

I know you're writing creatively but I don't think anyone actually cried out in that specific manner.
In fact, according to the evidence, only 4 members of the deck crew actually saw the berg during the first 45 seconds after the three bells were sounded. These were the two lookouts, Murdoch and Olliver. Only two other crew members knew about it - Moody and Hitchens who were not in a position to see it.
Boxhall, according to the evidence, heard the news about the ice first from Moody. Ironically, the captain was possibly the last man on his own bridge to hear about the ice.

As for Olliver seeing, not hearing the slow ahead - If Captain Smith actually put hands to telegraph then there was no other officer nearby to do it for him. Under normal circumstances, that's how things worked. The Commodore who has First and Sixth Officers on the bridge does not personally lay hands on the engine telegraphs unless he does so in a dire emergency. In this instance, the dire emergency had already passed and the aftermath was in full swing. This means Smith rang the telegraph well after impact, when the berg was 'way down stern' as the transcript has it. He probably had to do it because his officers were engaged in other, more pressing duties.
That part of Olliver's evidence I have no doubt about!
There is another way to approach this:

If Olliver 'saw' captain Smith operation the telegraph, how was that possible on a completely darkened, enclosed bridge space unless there was light by which he could see him doing so? OK Olliver could see the light on the face of the telegraph and would be able to see what order (Slow Ahead) the indicator was pointing to but unless there was light, he could not see who was actually operating the handles. If however, Smith was the only officer there then all becomes clear and we are 'enlightened'.

Now the bit that doesn't seem to matter:

"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."

I detect a contradiction here Senan. I would think that if Olliver being on the port side proving that Boxhall was lying surely does matter?

Perhaps you are missing an essential point?

Boxhall and Olliver were questioned separately. There is little or no evidence that their questioner doubted what he was being told. Consequently there was no need for Boxhall or Olliver to use the other to confirm the truth of their respective answers as to where they were.
Both men heard the 3 bells, both were approaching the bridge at the time - only Boxhall was asked what side he was on as he approached the bridge.
Boxhall was first questioned on Day 3 of the US Hearing and Olliver on Day 7 - 4 days later. Boxhall was called at the UK Hearing, Olliver was not!

As you pointed out, Olliver was a 'plain, unvarnished sort of guy' He was ex Navy and like all 'old hands' well versed in the practice of giving answers precisely and not offering extra information unless it was specifically asked for. Just take a look at the answers supplied by most of the other ex navy men.

Incidentally; I'm not going to 'cross swords' with you either - just engage in intelligent debate and 'friendly banter'. I suggest we leave the other approach to those who should know better!

Jim.

 

[Senan Molony]

Some X-rated shipwreck here, a bit of Sapphic action...

Vessel on vessel, both named the Sappho...

Well, what are the chances?

But here's a thread-relevant extract that will prevent confiscation of this disgusting reading material by the moderators -

The Captain of the man-of-war, like so many in a similar condition, did not confine himself to using one indicator of distress.

Here he used two. The literature is groaning with cases of several means of signalling distress being used simultaneously.

Titanic did not do much beyond the very many rockets she sent up, of all colours, at least eight of which would have been socket distress signals making a loud bang.

 

[Jim Currie]

Well noted! However did you also note that it was the Wilson Line steamer that was in collision with the navy ship - not the opposite way round. Obviously not The Navy's fault. Not even a Second Class Cruiser's fault. Of course, a First Class Cruiser would never have been in such a predicament in the first place!

 

[Senan Molony]

So you're saying that it was the Sappho that hit the Sappho,
- rather than the Sappho that struck the Sappho?

Typical!

No doubt they proceeded to castigate the Sappho
...when, clearly, they should have blamed the Sappho.

 

[Martin Cooper]

No matter which way you put it, the Sappho was the culprit, but you can bet it was not the RN one (Olympic-Hawke for instance). Might be a case of 'When two Sappho's collide'.

 

[Senan Molony]

I should have noted that this happened in July 1909, less than three years before the Titanic.

The above extract's very phrase "minute guns" (which is nowhere in the 1894 legislation, as periodically updated by regulation) shows what was the common understanding at the time.

That distress signals, whether visible or audible, should be rapid in their discharge.

Titanic sprayed a variety of rockets into the night sky, because that is what the witnesses attest to.

Failing to see all - and instead only seeing some - would cause a vessel over the horizon to imagine that these noiseless displays are few and far between.

It is highly unlikely that the totality of pyrotechnics discharged by Titanic were few and far between.

It is immensely more likely (and well attested) that they were in fact plentiful and rapid, even "simultaneous" in the phrase of lookout George Symons, whom Lightoller thought the quickest-witted of the crew.

 

[Jim Currie]

I 'sapphose' your right!

 

[Senan Molony]

More than enoupph were pphired pphrom the tapph rail, pphlying up in a pupph of pphlame -
So there sapphire in the pphirmament.

As well as a ppherocious pphlash-bang, pphollowed by pphlung pphlares pphalling.

Wake the dead.

 

[Martin Cooper]

pphlipping heck, and they pphlew up in the sky to about 600 or 800 ppheet.

 

[Senan Molony]

HEREWITH a *perfect* and *full* description of the Cotton Powder Company's socket distress signal used by Titanic -

Readers of this thread should take careful note of the following in particular -

AND

Nobody can prevent fantasists from indulging in their fantasies... but it must be abundantly clear to those rooted in the real world that the Titanic's Mystery Ship heard the shocking bangs of the detonating tonite aloft, then the most audibly powerful explosive in the world.

No need for artillery when you have some of these.

 

[Jim Currie]

Excellent (the previous post as well!)
No doubt critics will have an 'ah but!'.

followed by;

' the article does not clearly state that it was the sound that brought the rescue vessel from 12 miles away.'

The answer to that doubt would be: 'OK then, it must have been the lights in the sky that did the trick.'
The article can also be construed as meaning lights in the sky seen 12 miles away was something exceptional.

What it clearly indicates is that all those incompetent idiots on Titanic and Californian could not guage distance from other ships at night and that included the greasy greaser!

 

[Martin Cooper]

Good post Senan, It just goes to show that at the distance the Californian was from the Titanic, they could not hear the sound of these signals, proving that she was a lot further than 12 miles away, making a mockery of both of the 'lets find a scapegoat' enquiries in America and Britain. Jim has hit the nail on the head again though, you can bet that some will now try to prove that there was an 'odd sort of breeze' that blew the sound the other way, or some other freak of nature happening in that area on that night, so that the sound wouldn't carry all that far. Good work in finding that Senan, well done.

 

[Simon Koncz]

Well I did revive this thread about a week ago, alerting you all to the violence of the socket signal concussions, the explosive of which Senan has discovered, and the subsequent disconnect between that fact and the UK boards findings of Cs "culpability.

But im not bitter.

 

[Scott Mills]

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!

If I am not mistaken didn't the scrap log and the chief's log of the Mount Temple get "removed" sometime shortly after the Titanic disaster? As I recall, in Baker's letter (the replacement for the 3rd officer who immediately quit the ship when Mount Temple reached port after the Titanic incident) to Stanley Lord, in addition to mentioning that the crew and other officers admitted to him that they had seen Titanic sink (and her colored rockets, which we now know were fired), that at some point the company sent for the scrap log and the chief's log. In fact, I think Baker says the scrap log contained only one line from that time period, but the Chief's log contained a detailed description of what had happened, and that Baker himself had read it.

I could very well be mistaken about this though.

 

[Mila]

Paul, this is something that few start to understand. Titanic did not fire rockets as commonly understood. We tend to use the word as a short cut. They were really socket signals, which were small mortars that used a charge of gunpowder to send a container of pyrotechnics high into the air. Then a second explosion scattered stars.

So we have two bangs. The first is about 65 feet above the sea, give or take a bit for the fact Titanic was sinking. This was a loud sound, because the powder charge was equal to that used in a 12 pound cannon. Socket signals were accepted as alternatives to signal cannon. The second bang took place at between 700 and 800 feet and was comparatively tame.

Personally, I wouldn't like to estimate how far the sounds could be heard on a still night at sea. My best guess is 5 to 8 miles, based on the fact that signals from Carpathia were heard well before she arrived at the wreck site. See my site for why I think Carpathia was quite close when she started firing signals.

users.senet.com.au/~gittins/carpathia.html

Dave, the link to your website does not work, but here is what I would like to ask you please.
I also believe that Carpathia was 6-7 miles from the lifeboats, when she fired these rockets at 3:30 a.m. Why then Beesley says he saw only a dim flash getting up from below the horizon? Why Gibson and Stone describe the rockets similarly? They all should have seen these rockets exploded noticeably above the horizon. Why they did not? And why Gibson even looking in binoculars could not see the Carpathia's navigational lights? Why Beesley , and nobody else from lifeboats could not see them either? After all they had no problems in seeing navigational lights of Californian.