The Jack Phillips/Harold Bride picture

[Hydie Cheung]

Lucky,

Would you mind to send me that attachment of the document through email? I would like to take a look at it. My email address is: [email protected]

Thank you!

And Inger, do you still have the article about the woman who claimed to be Bride's wife's reincarnation? It sounds fake to me but yet, it sounds interesting as well. Just curious on these little stories. thanks!

Love,
Hydie

 

[Inger Sheil]

LOLOL! Lucky, I already assumed you were aware of this miscaptioned photo - we've known about it for years, and this is one of the ones that has sparked comment in the past! You should base your research on controversial issues on primary sources, not secondary ones. In a book as extensive as that one, there's bound to be some miscaptioning - this isn't the only instance, as Parks points out. I can think of another off the top of my head - a captioning of a photo with Lowe, his father and sister that refers to his sister as 'Josie' - the woman is in fact Ada. Josie, his daughter, would not be born for another few years.

Favourite miscaptioning, eh, Parks? That's a tough one...I like Thresh's observation that 'Mrs Ismay survived the sinking', but I suppose strictly speaking she did (along with everyone else who didn't sail on the ship). Perhaps one of the many, many secondary sources - some very reputable - that have the Olympic's officers as the Titanic's? I can think of at least one very reputable secondary source that has Henry Cater as Lightoller.

I think you're quite safe to continue to trust data derived from your lunch date - just as I'll continue to go along with the evidence of multiple primary sources rather than a secondary source that has no supporting data for its assertion, and is contradicted by the evidence extant!

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo Hydie!

Sorry, no - I don't have an article on the woman claiming to be the reincarnation of Bride's wife. She's probably still circulating out there on the internet somewhere...!

 

[Robert Falange]

Hello all !

The Eaton/Haas book is a superb source of information, has often been mentioned on this messageboard, and is probably owned by a fair proportion of the contributors to this board. But as Parks and Inger have shown clearly, there appear to be a number of errors, including the unfortunate mis-captioning cited here.

It does beg the question - if the gentleman pictured with Jack Phillips is NOT Harold Bride (and personally I'm persuaded by the arguments above that he is not), then who is he? I wonder if the combined resources of our board members could help identify him? There can only be a limited number of candidates.

To start the ball rolling, if you look at the
source cited by Fiona above (Glen Dunstan's radio page) http://www.hf.ro/
there is a photo there of the Olympic's radio operators, Moore and Bagat. Is it just my imagination or does the jauntily-posed Bagat bear at least a passing resemblance to the disputed subject of our discussion??

cheers,

bob

 

[Inger Sheil]

G'day Bob!

I think Jemma Hyder had it on the cards to call up the crew agreements for the Adriatic in order to establish who the wireless operators on her were during Philips' time aboard her - don't know if she got around it. I'll take your Bagat suggestion on board and see if he, or someone else, turns up in the agreements! The name without an image won't be definitive, but it will give us a starting point...and a more likely candidate than Bride.

 

[Lucky Forte]

I don't think it was miscaptioned given the sources and if that isn't enough for you to just admit you are wrong then there is nothing more to say on the subject. As far as I am concerned I proved my point. Like you said previously Inger about evidence well I guess everything would never be enough evidence for you. The book is very informative with many photos and isn't it more likely than not the book is correct as the authors captioning of the picture being that of Phillips and Bride in addition the books acknowledgment that is made for the copyright photographs from the Father Francis M. Browne, SJ collection. Now you are going to argue the point of miscaptioning? Maybe it is you who think that if the information didn't come from you or from Parks for that matter, that it could not even be conceived as a true source, especially when it is other than what you had stated. LOL. Now that makes me laugh. Actually me and some friends had a bet last night on the outcome of this information to you and naturally I won as I said that you would never admit you are wrong and that you would say just what you did about the captioning. My friends and I had a good laugh over the whole situation on how someone that was shown the true facts and shunned off what is actually printed as opposed to their own conclusions or a supposed lunch date conversation as being the better source. Father Francis M. Browne had to have stated who was in the picture or at the very least wrote it on the back of the photo. Suck it up! I proved my point, be adult about the situation. You just won't quit and just admit that someone proved you wrong about something. You would rather say everything else was misprinted or misrepresented or anything else than to say there was something that you were debating about the Titanic and were wrong. Case closed. Evidence showed! Move on.

 

[Fiona Nitschke]

I have two different editions of 'Titanic: Triumph & Tragedy' by Eaton and Haas, and like others above, have noted several errors in both editions. While the second edition (1994) does have some corrections, that photo caption on p63 is unfortunately not the only error remaining.

Eaton and Haas credit Father Browne for the picture - he took it, and it's his handwritten caption I referred to in my above post. Father Browne is a primary source (contemporary account, in his own words, in which he comments on events that he witnessed or participated in), as is Harold Bride's testimony that he and Phillips hadn't met prior to serving on Titanic. The Eaton and Haas book is not a primary source, whatever its other merits. Again, I'll take Father Browne's information on the photographs he took over someone else's captions any day.

Count me as another interested in who was serving with Phillips on Adriatic. I sincerely hope Jemma (or some other generous soul) has time to look up the records of which Marconi operator (or operators) served alongside him on that ship. Another primary source on this certainly wouldn't hurt.

Lucky, if you hadn't already seen Glen Dunstan's website I hope you found it of interest. I did get your message but am mystified as to why you think I don't have an email address. I do: it's on my profile page. If you wanted it to send me a scan from Eaton and Haas, thanks for the offer, but I have two copies of the book sitting right next to me. Also, have you seen a copy of the Father Browne album, including his handwritten notes? While the book may not be as common in the US as the Eaton and Haas book, it's not uncommon either, so you'll probably be able to get it through your library even if on an inter-library loan. Unfortunately I don't have a scanner or I'd be happy to oblige.

Cheers, F

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Well, Inger, Lucky and her ilk have proved us wrong and exposed us for the manipulative tyrants we really are. Nothing left to do now but haul in our wares, board up the shop and leave Ningnong Alley.

Parks

 

[Lucky Forte]

" but also the identification of the ship (the two men did not serve together on the Adriatic)"
(former Inger post Sunday, 13 July, 2003)
P.S. The caption for the photo does not state that Bride and Phillips served together on the Adriatic. It does however state that they shared a smoke on the deck of the Adriatic, not that they served on it together.

It is entirely possible that Bride's testimony stating that he had not previously met Phillips was most likely true, as they probably met around the time this photo was taken, on their way to the Titanic.


Posted by Lucky's girlfriend, Nolia

 

[Inger Sheil]

As far as you may be concerned you have 'proved your point', but that's not how historical research and methodology work, Lucky. You cannot cite a secondary source and claim it as 'evidence' when there is no primary source to back it up.

The book is indeed informative and has many photos, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is 'more likely than not' that the book is correct. There are some excellent books out there that have errors in them - e.g. the Henry Cater / Charles Lightoller mistake I mentioned. That is in Titanic: An Illustrated History, which is at least as reputable as Eaton and Haas' work. No historian gets it right every single time. There have already been several instances pointed out to you where photographs have been miscaptioned in this work.

quote:

Like you said previously Inger about evidence well I guess everything would never be enough evidence for you.

Not so. But I demand a higher standard of evidence than you do, and I put more emphasis on primary sources. We have multiple sources that point to this not being Bride. We have, on the other side, your subjective opinion on the appearance of the man, and a caption that constitutes a secondary source and which lacks a reference. For someone trained in historical methodology, it is very clear where the weight of evidence lies.

quote:

the books acknowledgment that is made for the copyright photographs from the Father Francis M. Browne, SJ collection. Now you are going to argue the point of miscaptioning?

Absolutely. That's what I can and am doing. When you've been around the Titanic community a bit longer, you'll find out how prevelant the problem of miscaptioning is! We've already pointed out a couple of errors in the very book you cite. The copyright covers the image itself - it does not cover the caption. The original caption - the one supplied by Father Browne himself - clearly identifies only Philips. This has been supplied to you earlier in this conversation, and you have chosen to ignore it. Eaton and Haas do not identify how they arrived at their identification of Bride: without a reference, and given that it contradicts other sources, this is worthless as evidence.

quote:

Maybe it is you who think that if the information didn't come from you or from Parks for that matter, that it could not even be conceived as a true source, especially when it is other than what you had stated.

Both Parks and I have been aware of this miscaptioning for many years, as it has been discussed before quite extensively. Most of the denizens of the Titanic community are well are that this was debunked many years ago. I can't speak for Parks, although I have tremendous respect for his objectivity and quest for all sources, but I reject utterly your suggestion that insinuates bias on our part. We keenly seek after new sources, but only if they are legitimate. The so-called 'proof' you supplied is neither a 'new' source (it's a very old one that most of us here were already aware of) and it's not a convincing counter-source at all.

quote:

I said that you would never admit you are wrong and that you would say just what you did about the captioning. My friends and I had a good laugh over the whole situation on how someone that was shown the true facts and shunned off what is actually printed as opposed to their own conclusions or a supposed lunch date conversation as being the better source.

I suggest that you and your friends study historical methodology a bit closer, and then you might understand what 'true facts' are. I repeat again: what you have cited is a secondary source that is unsupported by contemporary evidence. Titanic literature is litered with miscaptioned photos and errors, and even the most reliable of sources have them. Unless you can prove that there is a legitimate contemporary source at the base of this, then this is worth no more than the paper it was printed on.

As for a 'supposed lunch date conversation' - given that Parks has given as specific attribution for this source (even going so far as to name the family member from which the information is derived), yes - this does consitute better evidence for the discarding of the 'Bride' identification. Parks is an established researcher with an impeccable record in this field. He has provided a source for his data, rather than just pluck it out of the ether.

quote:

Father Francis M. Browne had to have stated who was in the picture or at the very least wrote it on the back of the photo.

He did. The actual caption written by Father Browne has been photographed and replicated in a book of his Titanic related photographs. The caption is as cited above. The Eaton and Haas caption has nothing to do with how Browne originally captioned the photo. This angle has been examined and addressed before by those working with the photos.

quote:

Suck it up! I proved my point, be adult about the situation. You just won't quit and just admit that someone proved you wrong about something. You would rather say everything else was misprinted or misrepresented or anything else than to say there was something that you were debating about the Titanic and were wrong. Case closed. Evidence showed! Move on.

If there is a question about being adult about this situation, it should be directed at you (a side note as moderator of this forum: I must caution you about using innappropriate language such as 'suck it up'). You have not proved your point at all, although you have demonstrated a lack of the following:

1.) Comprehension of historical methodology, what constitutes primary and secondary sources, and the need to assess and weigh up evidence.

2.) What is and is not a 'fact'

3.) Understanding and familiarity with Titanic literature and sources and

4.) Good manners and netiquette.

This case may well be closed, but not in the way you think. If the best you can muster in opposition to multiple sources arguing against he identification of Bride is a caption to a photo that differs from the original caption and for which no source is provided, you've lost the debate.​

 

[Inger Sheil]

quote:

It is entirely possible that Bride's testimony stating that he had not previously met Phillips was most likely true, as they probably met around the time this photo was taken, on their way to the Titanic.

Unfortunately not possible, Nolia. Philips' previous berth was not the Adriatic - he served aboard the Oceanic after that, and it was from the Oceanic that he transferred to the Titanic.​

 

[Fiona Nitschke]

quote:

Father Francis M. Browne had to have stated who was in the picture or at the very least wrote it on the back of the photo.

Father Browne, who took the photo, didn't record that it was Bride with Phillips. He only names Phillips. Bride stated at the US Senate enquiry that he hadn't met Phillips before Titanic.

Lucky, have you had the opportunity to look at Father Browne's book, with the information on the photograph in Father Browne's handwriting? Why is a secondary source (Eaton and Haas) more credible than the person who took the photograph?

Also, why do you think Bride lying about not having met Phillips before Titanic? They met on Titanic, in Belfast. See Bride's testimony at the US Senate enquiry, so you don't have to take my word for it.

You (or Nolia) have suggested that Bride and Phillips could've shared a f~~ on Adriatic's deck before joining Titanic. Where and when? It wasn't in Belfast as that year Adriatic was on the Liverpool/New York run (as per Haws, Merchant Fleets in Profile 2, 1979). Why didn't Father Browne recognise Bride? Father Browne knew who Phillips was and the Titanic connection.

There is someone in this thread who isn't admitting that they were proved wrong in the face of supporting primary sources easily checked. However, it's certainly not Parks or Inger.

Good night,
F​

 

[Lucky Forte]

I appreciate everyone's input into this matter, however I still believe what I originally stated. Unless I read otherwise, it stands as is. I will however, look up the book by Father Francis M. Brown ( thank you for the source Fiona) and further my research into this Phillips/Bride picture. To you Inger, I say possibilities are around every turn. Nothing is ever cut and dry. Sometimes one has to open their minds to see the possibilities of something other than what they believe to be as opposed to what is stated in print. That's all for me now - until I further my research.

 

[Inger Sheil]

I think it would be a good idea to further your research, Lucky - although in this instance, the pertinent facts re. the Father Browne caption (including a direct citation of his caption for the photo in question) are in the posts in this thread. Still, I always urge people to go back to primary sources!

You can believe whatever you like - no one can force you to accept the evidence or the facts that have been presented to you in contradiction to the theory you find appealing. You suggest that 'nothing is ever cut and dried' - sometimes that's the case and the world is full of shades of gray. But sometimes the facts are clear enough for us to state with considerable certainty where the weight of evidence lies. That is the case with the evidence against this being a photo of Bride.

A word of advice to you as you further your Titanic studies. Don't put blind faith in published histories - whether that be in photo captions or in the bulk of the text. Just because it's in print doesn't mean it's a 'fact' - there are many errors, misconceptions, half-truths, conjecture masquerading as fact, etc etc in published Titanic sources. Researchers can honestly make mistakes, and even the best and most scrupulous of author/historians can be in error. There has never been a comprehensive Titanic book published that did not contain an error of some type or other.

On a controversial issue, go back to primary sources. Don't accept without question a secondary source. In this case, the primary sources are the Browne album and his caption, Bride's testimony, and the crew agreements of the Titanic that demonstrate that Philips' previous berth was the Oceanic.

Also, be aware that new sources are emerging all the time. As Parks has pointed out, up until now - other than occasional contact with researchers - the Bride family have chosen not to have a public profile. This has changed with one of his nephews choosing to discuss the matter publicly with Parks - from the point of view of research into the wireless officers, this is a tremendous breakthrough, as are the insights he has decided to share. This is what makes the family's observations on the photo so important - we finally have their input on this source.

I've always been open to persuasion and have often had cause to change my views on Titanic related matters, but only when the evidence is substantive and persuasive. Keeping an open mind is good advice, and I hope you do so.

 

[Lucky Forte]

A word of advice to you as you further your Titanic studies. Don't put blind faith in published histories - (AS YOU PUT IT)

My reply- "No...I should believe you"!

My research will continue based on historical documentation interest rather than internet hearsay! End Of Post!