The Jack Phillips/Harold Bride picture

[Trent Pheifer]

I am going to have to go with Inger and Parks on this one. I can be very open minded about things relating to Titanic, b/c there are many things that are still a mystery. But when something comes up that has the evidence (first hand) stating that the other person in the picture is NOT Bride it is very hard to contest that. As said above you cannot always trust 2nd hand sources....Eaton and Haas are two of the historians I trust the most, but there is bound to be at least one mistake in a 300 or so page book. And about the whole "being adult" I am not so sure Lucky you are the prime example for "being adult" You are taking a very childish way of researching history...but I think its good that you are now going to do some more research into it. But weigh the facts:

Pros for It being Bride:

-Eaton and Haas state it in a caption
-Lucky's opinion that it looks like him

Cons for it being Bride

-Browne never mentions it in the ORIGINAL caption
-Bride stating he never met Phillips before
-Bride family denying it is Bride
-Like Inger said Phillips transferred from the Oceanic to Titanic..so the theory that it was right before being transferred doesn't hold up.

The evidence just does not hold up that it is Bride.

Now that it seems that the person is not Bride, I would love to know who it is. Are the sign-on books for Adriatic readily available? You guys has sparked my interest!

-Trent

 

[Trent Pheifer]

Woops guess I took to long to read all the posts and respond! There are three new ones above mine that I never read! I guess I'm just slow!

-Trent

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Trent,

I'll add one last nugget to your list of "cons":

The two men in the photograph in question are wearing two different styles of Marconi cap badges. Phillips has the "fancy M," the other man, the "plain M." There was some variation in emblems, as each was handmade from gold bullion thread, so what one wore was often dependent on where the item was purchased. The cap that Phillips wears in the Adriatic photo is identical in style to the one he wears in his formal portrait.

In the formal portrait of Bride, which has yet to be published but exists nonetheless, Bride is wearing a uniform cap with -- you guessed it -- the "fancy M." It's a different cap than the one that Phillips wears for his portrait (Bride has the white cover, Phillips the blue), but the workmanship and style of both emblems is almost identical.

In those days, the operators had to purchase their own uniforms. With their wages, owning more than one cap was rare. Given the similarity of the cap badges, I would speculate that both men bought their caps from the same vendor.

This is not definitive evidence. There are many derivations that one can derive from this. But this is one more piece of a puzzle that can be put together any way one wishes.

Parks

 

[Inger Sheil]

quote:

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

You don't have to 'believe me' at all - go and check out all the sources I've cited if you doubt what I've told you. I've invented nothing - it's all documented and freely available. If you have a question about anything I've told you, feel free to ask and I'll give you a source.

quote:

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

I'm delighted it will - I certainly hope it does extend to historical documentation and not the secondary sources and opinion on perceived resemblances that you've thus far relied upon (you haven't drawn on any 'historical documentation' at all to date). Nothing I've cited here has been 'internet hearsay' - it's all documented and can be very easily verified by the most rudimentary research. Bride's testimony is available on-line, the Browne book isn't difficult to find, and the crew agreements can be located on this website.

As for the evidence Parks has offered - when you've been around a bit and learned who is who in the Titanic research community, you'll find that there are people whose word about their research is absolutely trustworthy. I'd trust Parks' report of interaction he has had with the Bride family and information they have given him as well as any published source secondary source, if not a good deal more. He is a respected, published author/historian, who has acted as a consultant to both documentaries and books. Pick up a copy of Ghosts of the Abyss and see who's name you find in the acknowledgements - or watch the movie, if you prefer, and keep an eye out when the credits start rolling. He's the man who did the work on the Marconi room. You may also have caught him interviewed in a documentary that aired recently, talking about this area, where his expertise is second to none.​

 

[Inger Sheil]

Thanks for that additional bit of evidence, Parks! Very interesting indeed. And thanks for your input too, Trent. I need to ascertain if the Adriatic's crew agreements for this are at the PRO or possibly at Newfoundland. I had heard once source suggesting they were at the PRO, but a look at the catalogue didn't turn them up. Perhaps someone else knows? If not, I'll give them a go when I'm next ordering documents from Newfoundland.

 

[Hydie Cheung]

Another thing I was thinking about a moment ago. While I was looking at Father Browne's album to take a further look on the picture, I noticed that the pictures of Phillips and Bride were two seperated pictures on the same page. The one with Jack Phillips is shown above at the first post of this thread. And the one with Harold Bride is shown in this link: http://www.hf.ro/real%20mgy%20rroom.jpg

Just my opinion. If the the gentleman on Phillips's right was really Bride, why didn't Father Browne just put their names together in one captions instead of two? I am pretty sure that wasn't Bride now.

- Hydie

 

[Lucky Forte]

Hydie you are somewhat off the page here and the track gets farther from making sense with every post. Every photo is going to have a caption.
Well yet more proof turned up in Time Life Books/The Discovery Channel that also states the Photo is of Bride and Phillips. Yet another great source of true fact here I'd say.
Parks interaction with the Bride family is something I cannot and will not even try to say I know are to be true.
Thanks but no thanks Inger about going to you for any and all info...there are many more expert written and recorded facts that go by truth and not mere speculation or another claimed inside source that I know not to be fact.
Still I will continue to be interested in reading and seeing any and all that I can on the subject of the titanic.
This post has somehow turned into everyone piling on me rather than opening their minds to a possibility of something other than what is just believed to be or a so-called meeting for lunch in the San Diego area around the North Park section with a nephew of Harold Bride as claimed by Parks.
What it all comes down to is there are many sources that support the Phillips/Bride photo as it truly being the two on the dock of the Adriatic when the photo was taken and ones of good solid grounds such as Time Life Books/Discovery Channel. When I weigh out the two sides I just don't have a credible one for sure facts other than what Parks says or what Inger says and all the others that just want to back them up instead of really thinking of the not so true possibilities here.
More research is being done and more evidence is piling up all the time. Yes I am a believer that this photo is indeed Phillips and Bride. Time Life Books and The Discovery Channel just does not merely speculate and whats more if it was not Phillips and Bride in the photo they certainly would have captioned it as being John (Jack) Phillips and possibly Harold Bride or who appears to be Harold Bride.
Will inform you if anymore sources state who the photo is of and will let you know who the source is as well.
Till then....the more words you write the bigger your appetite will have to be.

 

[Trent Pheifer]

This is in no way a "gang up against Lucky" issue. We are just trying to show you that it is not Bride!! You still have given us NO hard evidence that it is him.

You say: "Well yet more proof turned up in Time Life Books/The Discovery Channel that also states the Photo is of Bride and Phillips. Yet another great source of true fact here I'd say."

Do you want to know to know where they most likely found the information to caption their picture in their book? Eaton and Haas. If you notice in the bibliography Triumph and Tragedy is stated. They most likely saw the caption took it as the truth and reprinted it without even thinking of double checking.

It is how myths turn into fact...they are started and just repeated over and over until they become the "truth".

As much as you want to think Time/life checked every fact b/c they are a big company that is far from the truth...and example would be the History Channel which many times is wrong.

-Trent

PS If it ever comes to it I will sit down and have a nice dinner out of eating my words. But then again I just don't think that is going to happen with this subject.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Lucky,

Dinner, not "lunch." North Park? Where did you get that idea? Must be a place that you're familiar with, because it's not really my section of town. You've gone beyond defending your opinion and are now deliberately provoking. Would you like to tell us why?

Like I said at the beginning, Lucky, good luck with your version of events. And whatever you do, please keep talking. You leave quite an impression.

Parks

 

[Dave Gittins]

Lucky, excuse my frankness, but you are fighting in the wrong weight division. Inger and Parks, who have shown you more consideration than I would, are extremely able researchers, who have seen more primary sources than you ever will. I'll charitably assume you know what primary sources are, though I suspect you don't. Hint: they are not Eaton and Haas or Time Life Books.

Books about Titanic are riddled with errors and incorrect captions are a dime a dozen. I could show you a photo that is allegedly of Joseph Boxhall. It's actually his father. There's a notorious photo of Olympic's officers that's almost invariably claimed to show the officers of Titanic. Errors are copied from book to book by those whose main aim is to get something profitable into print with minimum effort.

Pardon my remarks, but I suggest you post less and spend the time saved in studying the true meaning of research.

 

[Inger Sheil]

Lucky, just another note of warning: If that comment about where Parks met with the Sinclair was intended as provocation, given the reputation of the area, you're skating on very thin ice.

Trent is absolutely correct in his statement that this is not a matter of 'ganging up' - it's a matter of where the evidence lies and what the nature of substantive research is. The people who have commented in this thread have been involved in Titanic research for a long time, and are familiar with both sources and methodology. They are accustomed to a critical assessment of data and of the manner in which academic debate is conducted. Books often repeat earlier published errors - particularly if they appear in a book that is considered reputable. If repetition of an identification made it a 'fact,' then we'd still be identifying Holehouse as Moody, Cater as Lightoller, Hume as Pitman etc. etc. Come to think of it, some books still are using the Olympic officer photos as photographs of the Titanic's crew, in spite of the fact that they have been thoroughly debunked. As Dave G. could tell you, it's not hard to find repetitions of errors that have become imbedded in the Titanic canon...Rappahannock springs to mind.

quote:

Thanks but no thanks Inger about going to you for any and all info...there are many more expert written and recorded facts that go by truth and not mere speculation or another claimed inside source that I know not to be fact.

You do not 'know' anything not to be a fact (a double negative there, but it's early in the morning). You began with a closed mind, and have since shown a determination not to accept any evidence put to you, preferring to go to secondary sources rather than look at primary sources. I don't ask you to go to me for 'any and all' info, but as you've been talking about 'internet hearsay' and suggesting that I have required you to only trust what I've said, then I challenge you to point to any evidence I have put forward in this debate that is not backed up by primary material. Everything I have said is verifiable through readily available sources.

Park's reputation and credibility on this board and in the wider Titanic community need no justification. This is a man who is a recognised and acknowledged expert in this particular area, and whose expertise is consulted by other historians. He has earned the respect of his colleagues through sheer hard work. It is a grotesque insult to an established and reputable researcher and author to talk about his 'supposed' meeting. Parks stated what took place, and I would no more doubt his account than I would doubt any researcher here who has established their reputation through skill and hard work.

You need to look into what really constitutes 'research' before you make claims about it 'piling up'. Research - except of the most elementary, novice kind, reserved for school reports - does not involve popping down to the local library or bookshop and picking up a few books, leaving it there. Resesarch involves looking at and critically assessing sources, and in particular primary sources. A claim of an historical fact - e.g. the identification of two men in a photo - is useless unless it can be backed up with primary sources. In this case, there is no such backing and, instead, we find that the historical sources mitigate against it. This is a basic principle of research methodology, and simply choosing to ignore it, as you are doing, will not make it go away.

quote:

What it all comes down to is there are many sources that support the Phillips/Bride photo as it truly being the two on the dock of the Adriatic when the photo was taken and ones of good solid grounds such as Time Life Books/Discovery Channel.

No, there are not 'many sources' supporting the idea. There are two books, one of which uses the other as a source, and a caption that is contradicted by the original caption composed by Father Browne.

quote:

When I weigh out the two sides I just don't have a credible one for sure facts other than what Parks says or what Inger says and all the others that just want to back them up instead of really thinking of the not so true possibilities here.

The problem here is that you have not 'weighed up' the evidence at all. You've started with a pre-determined notion that the photo must be Bride and Philips, and you've ignored all evidence to the contrary. You've continually implied or even stated that there is just our word for it that it is not Bride. This is flying in the face of evidence.​

 

[Hydie Cheung]

No one knows the truth here, Lucky. Maybe you were right, although I personally agree that Inger and Parks have a stronger amount of statements and evidences to back up their points. I agree on their points about the references the Discovery Channel has used. It is not impossible that they might have used the mistaken resources.

And again, there is no "gang" here against you. We are just having a little debate in here on this particular controversial photo. That's why this board exist. Making different hypothesis is good, but do not close your mind from reading and thinking about the new evidences. It's a little rude to say something like "...rather than opening their minds to a possibility of something other than what is just believed to be or a so-called meeting for lunch in the San Diego area around the North Park section with a nephew of Harold Bride as claimed by Parks... " He does not have to make up stories like that.

- Hydie

 

[Kritina Johnston]

For some reason, I'm blaming myself because I even answered this in the first place...but in regards to errors and the Discovery Channel, those certainly have taken place. One that comes to mind is a major faux pas when they were referring to the third class gates being locked...along with the narration was a video of gates being locked, and a picture superimposed over that of Jack Phillips. The narration accompanying this was about the officers having ordered the gates to be locked. Now, if this is not a major, major inaccuracy (both of them!!!), then I do not know what is!

(And it took me twenty minutes to stop screaming at the TV over that...).

 

[Lucky Forte]

Excuse me Inger...I lived in North Park and I liked it very well as I also did Hillcrest which is my kind of place with many family there. (Catch my drift?) I was pointing out that I know San Diego as I have lived there for about thirteen years. Having Dinner with Brides nephew is a little out of believability. Where are yours and Parks sources coming from. Just because it is a relative saying it (If they truly did) does not make it so. As far as the court documentation goes Bride probably was telling the truth as Phillips and Bride met just before Titanic voyage. Pay attention to the details of my post.
Seems that some here get off track and end up all over the place. I will defend my stand on this unless the proof is not just a chance meeting or context that is taken out of place or what someone said as the tales as everyone knows get taller on down the line and change in the story telling the further it gets. People say how it could have been copied or that the info is known to be false. There are a lot of times that the facts about the story they are telling are indeed true. I say more often than not! Still everyone will think of the possibilities that it is not rather than is just to side with the majority here. Instead of pointing out how it may not be told correctly just think of the possibilities that it very may well be. What's to say that is isn't them...it's not that hard to see. Some are just to bent on that it is not them to even consider that it very well may be. My research is not done and if it is the last thing I do ...I will prove my Theory. It is a picture and they speak louder than words. I see where it looks like Bride in that photo. That's just my opinion. If I went around believing everything everyone said, I'm sure there would be a hexagon shape of sides to every subject. I have my own mind to think things through, take everything into consideration and take in all that is before me to see the complete picture. The picture I look at is of Phillips and Bride which is a major part of my opinion here along with printed captions as opposed to what everyone here just says. I am inclined to see that more clearly than with the post of claiming that some here are great sources. That is my feeling at this time and I can't really explain why just that it is. I guess you could say at this time I am convinced.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Lucky,

Whether or not you believe the man in the picture is Bride matters not to me. Your opinions have never affected, and probably will never affect, my research or work on the subject.

What I do object to, though, is your continual attacks on my word and credibility. In these public attacks, you make assumptions that are at variance with the facts. In your view, I had a chance luncheon with a relative of Bride's. In reality, it was an arranged business meeting. Since the man flew in from out of town, we chose to meet in a restaurant, and since you know San Diego, you should know that not all area restaurants are located in the North Park/Hillcrest area. In our instance, we actually conducted our business in North County. But that's minutiae...our initial meeting is not important, only our end product will be.

By the way, let's also not assume that this meeting convinced me that the person in the photo is not Bride. For the reasons that Trent outlined above, I was already of the opinion that Bride does not appear in the Adriatic photo. Because of this, my discussion with Bride's relative on the subject was limited to maybe 2 sentences. There was no need to pursue the subject further because we were in complete agreement. An e-mail from him last night reinforced that. Of course, just because he and I are in agreement doesn't mean that you have to accept it. And just because you don't accept it is no reason for you to insinuate that I fabricated my discussions with the man. If you have so much confidence in your view of events, why do you feel the necessity to attack my personal credibility?

To address another of your accusations, my "tale" may become more detailed as the debate continues, but it doesn't change. You, however, are adding your own fabrications to my story and then accusing me of telling tall tales. I would like for you to stop doing that, even though you are doing yourself no favours in doing so.

I must correct myself. When I stated above that your opinions have never affected my research, I misspoke. This extended debate on the subject, thanks to your protestations, caught the eye of a man in England who in turn sent an e-mail to me yesterday. Turns out that the man, who is a senior engineer at a communications company, is the grandson of Harold and Lucy Bride's daughter. I must say, if not for this quite visible debate, I probably would never have had the opportunity to speak with another member of the Bride family. So, in a roundabout way, I must thank you for being the catalyst for our introduction.

I have said from the beginning that you are welcome to your own opinion. I continually wish you luck in your research on the issue. And I cannot understand why you are unable to reciprocate or show tolerance for anyone of a different orientation.

Parks