The only difference between the two is how they form. Both will appear absolutely the same to an observer. The most important part stays. One will never see a steamer gradually appearing from behind the horizon under super refraction conditions. Besides Marengo was not in Iceberg infested waters. In fact, if you are to look closely at her logs, you will notice that the only time she did not report “much refraction” was when she was at the closest distance to the wreck site. In addition, Mila emailed to Captain John Lang, the author of this book Amazon.com: Titanic: A Fresh Look at the Evidence by a Former Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents (0884482396758): John Lang: Books and asked him what they meant under “much refraction”. He responded and told her he was aware about this log entry too, and he did not know what they meant. Furthermore, I cannot find it now, but there is an article written by dynamic meteorologists. They run lots of programs and simulations and they are sure there was no super refraction present on the wreck site at the time of the collision. I will ask Mila to give me a link and post it later.
The position of Stone's first "Flash" relative to the nearby vessel.
- Thread starter Jim Currie
- Start date
Here is an image of miraged icebergs.
And here is a screen shot from Mila's video
Here is a mirage of pack ice
And here is a screenshot from Mila's video
And Mila have just got back to me with the link to the article I've mentioned above
www.spiedigitallibrary.org
So you tell me what difference do you see.
And here is a screen shot from Mila's video
Here is a mirage of pack ice
And here is a screenshot from Mila's video
And Mila have just got back to me with the link to the article I've mentioned above
Reconstructing the prevailing meteorological and optical environment during the time of the Titanic disaster
In this paper, we reconstruct the meteorological and optical environment during the time of Titanic’s disaster utilizing a state-of-the-art meteorological model, a ray-tracing code, and a unique public-domain dataset called the Twentieth Century Global Reanalysis. With high fidelity, our...
So you tell me what difference do you see.
Jim Currie
Member
Alex, you are not comparing like-for-like . I remind you (and Sam since he has jumped on the band-wagon).
I wrote "the eyes of trained seafarer to determine the approximate distance of a vessel stopped 6 miles away on such a night as it was."
Perhaps the two of you are unaware of the fact that a single light is totally different from a cargo vessel lying beam -on or nearly beam-on showing her masthead light, red sidelight and a few accommodation lights aft? Just in case..
..
Jim Currie
Member
Alex, I am surprised at Rear Admiral John Lang's answer. He of all people should have remembered that unusual refraction is a feature of a High Pressure area, no matter where on the earth. Navigation tables have a special Table to deal with the phenomenon when taking sextant observations. Low temperature corrections are separate.
Normal Refraction in his day (and mine) was classified as refraction occurring when the atmospheric pressure is 29".6 and the air temperature is 50F This was established by a man named Friedrich Bessel.
Jim, even Mr. Stone testified that during the night the distance between the steamer he was watching and the Californian was changing. So as you know I believe that the steamer was the Titanic, and the Californian and the Titanic were drifting in different sets of current. I believe at their closest approach they were 8-9 miles apart. 9 miles could have appeared as 6 miles on a night with a very good visibility. It is hard to estimate the distance by the appearance of distant lights
Last edited:
Mila have just emailed me the exact quote:
“An entry in a log such as "much refraction" is noted by me but unless I know what they meant by that means I don't place too much reliance on their choice of words. Like you I don't know what they mean. In passing you probably spotted that I didn't always pay much attention to what people actually said in the two inquiries. One of the first things I learned on becoming an accident investigator is how appalling people's memory can be. The way round it is to compare all statements of "evidence" against each other, and the likely scenario being played out at the time. Add it all up and you will probably land up with a fair reconstruction of events. It isn't foolproof but you have little else to go on.”
But whatever Marengo saw, doesn’t matter. She was not in iceberg infested waters, and her meteorological circumstances differ from the ones present at the wreck site.
Last edited:
Jim Currie
Member
Alex, Admiral Lang was a political appointee to the Marine & Coastguard Agency's Marine Investigation Branch. He was, first and foremost, a Highly experienced( ex Royal Navy )Submariner who spent the last years of his service in charge of a Nuke Submarine Commander's course. Although his credentials are impeccable, His practical experience as Marine Accident Investigator was limited to say the least. He joined the infant MAIB of the UK Ministry of Transport in late 1995 and was out in 2002. I doubt if he ever carried out a field investigation. His comment "but unless I know what they meant by that means I don't place too much reliance on their choice of words. " Is a strange one. It in fact suggests that he either did not have the knowledge to properly interpret the remark i.e. he hadn't a clue what they meant, or couldn't be bothered to dig back into the depths of his early training as a cadet in P. & O. I have no doubt that he once had that knowledge since it would have been dinned into him at sextant use lectures, prior to and in preparation for his annual Cadet Exams
Jim Currie
Member
Alex, you and others should read the evidence of those who had actually seen vessels like Titanic at sea and at night. As young Gibson told his questioners..."
"I have seen nearly all the large passenger boats out at sea, and there was nothing at all about it to resemble a passenger boat."
7729. What is it you expected to see?
- A passenger boat is generally lit up from the water's edge."
Not only was Titanic lit down to her water line, but she would have had at least 5 rows of lit portholes forward of her red side light which, even foreshortened would have been highly visible to an observer using binoculars
Jim, we should remember that the Titanic's heading allowed the Californian's officers to see only some of her lights. Besides there were a few icebergs between the two. Icebergs could have eclipsed some lights.
Jim, I will tell you honestly, sometimes I feel as believing in mystery ships, but then I remember the testimony of Mr. Groves about a passenger steamer, the testimonies of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stone about seeing at least one rocket being fired from the deck and about the lights that looked weird as the Titanic was going under, Mr Stone's testimony that the rockets were changing their bearing together with the steamer. Add to this the amazing coincidence of times. The steamer stopped when the Titanic struck; the steamer steamed away when the Titanic sank, and you can't help but conclude that the steamer was the Titanic.
Jim Currie
Member
It is true, Alex, that "you can't help thinking" it was Titanic. However, you can only have your thoughts confirmed if you completely disregard or disprove an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary.
I actually see only one thing that might be hard to explain. I mean the fact that the Titanic was heading somewhat north.
Jim Currie
Member
If that cannot be explained then all bets are off. You might tru and explain why it was tha Groves saw a vessel approaching for half an hour... from the south. A vessel which was about 12 miles away when he first saw it. A vessel. the bearing of which did not change very much and which stopped when about 6 miles away. He watched that vessel for exactly 30 minutes. This means that the vessel in question was making about 12 knots... Titanic was making 22.5 knots.
However, if Groves did see Titanic and it stopped 6 miles away, then it was 17.25 miles away when he first saw it... which is completely absurd. Not only that, but if he could see it then the trained, experienced lookouts on Titanic would most certainly have been able to see Californian for at least 30 minutes before their ship hit the iceberg. The lookouts did not see a vessel right ahead for the 30 minutes prior to impact. In fact, it was not until after Fleet and Lee were relieved at Midnight that their reliefs reported seeing a light ahead.
However, if Groves did see Titanic and it stopped 6 miles away, then it was 17.25 miles away when he first saw it... which is completely absurd. Not only that, but if he could see it then the trained, experienced lookouts on Titanic would most certainly have been able to see Californian for at least 30 minutes before their ship hit the iceberg. The lookouts did not see a vessel right ahead for the 30 minutes prior to impact. In fact, it was not until after Fleet and Lee were relieved at Midnight that their reliefs reported seeing a light ahead.
Julian Atkins
Member
Hi AlexP,
You pose a most interesting problem in respect of Titanic ended up facing sort of northwards after hitting the ice berg.
One might have expected someone on Titanic's bridge to have taken a compass bearing of where they ended up, but apparently no one did!
Boxhall is the main culprit in all this with his recollection of a hard astern order to the engine room, that makes no sense whatsoever, and then the ship ending up pointing westwards.
I have always treated Boxhall's evidence with considerable caution. He was after all ill with pleurisy apparently at the time of the USA Inquiry, and I think there is some evidence he was already ill at the time of the disaster.
He made lots of errors at the time on the evening of the 14th April, which can be proved as errors.
What is most refreshing about Sam's new book is he does a 'hatchet job' on Boxhill's evidence, that accords with my own view on Boxhill.
The evidence that Titanic ended up pointing northwards is not conclusive; there is contrary evidence on the issue. However, if you dismiss Boxhall, as I do, and I have always been of this opinion, then one can argue a compelling case that Titanic ended up pointing northwards.
Common sense is our answer; If Murdoch had not ordered 'hard a port' after 'hard a starboard'... turn to the left then turn to the right, then the ice berg would have continued to rip open the starboard side of Titanic's hull.
You then have to fit into this eyewitness accounts which are somewhat convoluted, and take a bit of thinking about.
I would happily concede that if Titanic ended pointing westwards as Boxhall claimed then a lot of what Jim has suggested on here on many threads makes some sort of sense.
However, as Sam has meticulously examined and explained in his new book, Titanic must have ended up pointing northwards.
Apart from the evidence Sam amasses and collates in his new book, we have the corroboration of what was seen by Groves and Stone and Gibson.
One of the very satisfying things about Sam's new book is that I, myself, don't have to concentrate on such matters anymore.
I am left instead with trying to fathom how on earth Captain Lord remained in the chart room all that night, and how Gibson thought Captain Lord was awake at 2.05am on the 15th April, when he reported to him of 8 white rockets seen.
Cheers,
Julian
You pose a most interesting problem in respect of Titanic ended up facing sort of northwards after hitting the ice berg.
One might have expected someone on Titanic's bridge to have taken a compass bearing of where they ended up, but apparently no one did!
Boxhall is the main culprit in all this with his recollection of a hard astern order to the engine room, that makes no sense whatsoever, and then the ship ending up pointing westwards.
I have always treated Boxhall's evidence with considerable caution. He was after all ill with pleurisy apparently at the time of the USA Inquiry, and I think there is some evidence he was already ill at the time of the disaster.
He made lots of errors at the time on the evening of the 14th April, which can be proved as errors.
What is most refreshing about Sam's new book is he does a 'hatchet job' on Boxhill's evidence, that accords with my own view on Boxhill.
The evidence that Titanic ended up pointing northwards is not conclusive; there is contrary evidence on the issue. However, if you dismiss Boxhall, as I do, and I have always been of this opinion, then one can argue a compelling case that Titanic ended up pointing northwards.
Common sense is our answer; If Murdoch had not ordered 'hard a port' after 'hard a starboard'... turn to the left then turn to the right, then the ice berg would have continued to rip open the starboard side of Titanic's hull.
You then have to fit into this eyewitness accounts which are somewhat convoluted, and take a bit of thinking about.
I would happily concede that if Titanic ended pointing westwards as Boxhall claimed then a lot of what Jim has suggested on here on many threads makes some sort of sense.
However, as Sam has meticulously examined and explained in his new book, Titanic must have ended up pointing northwards.
Apart from the evidence Sam amasses and collates in his new book, we have the corroboration of what was seen by Groves and Stone and Gibson.
One of the very satisfying things about Sam's new book is that I, myself, don't have to concentrate on such matters anymore.
I am left instead with trying to fathom how on earth Captain Lord remained in the chart room all that night, and how Gibson thought Captain Lord was awake at 2.05am on the 15th April, when he reported to him of 8 white rockets seen.
Cheers,
Julian
Last edited:
Jim, according to Mr. Groves at 11:10 pm. the Californian’s 3.5 points abaft the starboard beam was pointing south. According to Mr. Gibson at 12:15 am Californian’s starboard beam was pointing S.S.W. According to you the rate of swinging was 1 degree per minute, but it appears that the Californian swung only only for 22.5 degrees in 65 minutes between 11: 10 pm. and 12:15 am. Could you explain this please?
Similar threads
