The position of Stone's first "Flash" relative to the nearby vessel.

[AlexP]

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

Julian, if the Titanic were facing west, the Californian’s officers would have been seeing her green sidelight, and not her red as they did. So it is either she turned towards north or there was a mystery ship seen from the Californian. I am positive somehow the Titanic ended up turning north, but I cannot explain how come that the helmsman did not remember the order. Therefore, I believe that there might have been some other circumstances that allowed this turn to happen.

During 1992 Reappraisal of Evidence Relating to SS "CALIFORNIAN they ignored the testimony of somebody who said he heard another order and stated that the Titanic could not have been heading north.

“... that, although when he first saw the other ship Captain Lord recalls seeing a green (starboard) sidelight as one would expect with a ship to the south and approaching on a westerly course, later her red (port) light came into view, arguing that after stopping she swung markedly to starboard. Evidence of TITANIC'S change of heading after collision is not absolutely conclusive, but it is known that initially she went to port and the balance of evidence seems to be that afterwards her heading did not much change. Her port sidelight would therefore not be seen.”

So as I said I believe she ended up heading north somehow, but I am not sure there was another order.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I am positive somehow the Titanic ended up turning north, but I cannot explain how come that the helmsman did not remember the order.

Alex, if you carefully read the evidence given by Hichens you will realized that he was talking about the helm orders he received prior to the collision, not after it.
As far as facing northward after she came to stop, we have direct evidence from QM rowe that her head was facing northward. This was while he was on the bridge firing rockets on the starboard side and using the port-side Morse lamp. Furthermore, as you already know, we have direct evidence that hard-aport order was given by Murdock after QM Olliver came onto the bridge which was after the ship struck the berg as the peak of the berg was seen going aft passing the starboard bridge wing.
There is a lot of other evidence which I'm not going to bother people about.
Regarding Californian swinging at a constant rate of 1 degree per minute, it didn't happen that way.

 

[Paul Slish]

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.

I have been away from the ET boards for awhile. I enjoyed reading all the postings on this thread. I see nothing unusual about another freighter steaming along the 42nd parallel westbound to the USA. 2nd Officer Stone called it a small steamer. Ships steamed along a great circle route to the corner 42 N 47 W, and then headed west. Five miles south of the Californian's position of 42 05 N takes you right to the 42nd parallel.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Hello Paul. Yes, it has been a long time since you posted last. Hope all is fine.

 

[AlexP]

I have been away from the ET boards for awhile. I enjoyed reading all the postings on this thread. I see nothing unusual about another freighter steaming along the 42nd parallel westbound to the USA. 2nd Officer Stone called it a small steamer. Ships steamed along a great circle route to the corner 42 N 47 W, and then headed west. Five miles south of the Californian's position of 42 05 N takes you right to the 42nd parallel.

Maybe you see something unusual that according to Mr. Stone the Titanic rockets were changing their bearings together with that another freighter steaming along the 42nd parallel westbound to the USA of yours?

 

[Paul Slish]

Hello Paul. Yes, it has been a long time since you posted last. Hope all is fine.

Hi Sam, For the most part doing pretty well. Just getting older like yourself, senior citizens. I hope you are well also

 

[Paul Slish]

Maybe you see something unusual that according to Mr. Stone the Titanic rockets were changing their bearings together with that another freighter steaming along the 42nd parallel westbound to the USA of yours?

Alex, As you know well there are thousands of posts on the Californian on this site, and numerous books and articles written about the Californian on this voyage. It is not a simple matter. One has to read the totality of the testimony and evidence from both the Titanic and the Californian. Then it is a matter of analyzing it all, and trying to determine what happened etc. There are strong viewpoints on both sides of the issue. Californian and Titanic were in visual range is one perspective. The other is they were about 20 miles apart and not in visual range. When I was young I worked for the Forest Service in the western USA. One season I worked on a surveying crew. I took hundreds of bearings using a large staff compass (mounted on a tripod). It is not difficult with a little training to take compass bearings. We took them to an accuracy of 1/2 degree (30 minutes). You have to take several bearings to confirm that a ship has moved and that her bearing has changed definitively. Lord recalled Stone telling him initially the other ship had slightly altered her bearing. On a ship with even just a gentle swell that is not definitive. But Stone took repeated bearings (as confirmed by Gibson). I'm not convinced an officer with eight years at sea who had passed his 1st mate's exam could be off by 4 points or 45 degrees on repeated compass bearings. To me an interesting issue is the Californian's heading when Stone took over the watch. Neither Lord nor Groves had taken a compass bearing of the nearby steamer according to their testimony. Groves says the Californian heading was ENE. Stone says he looked at the compass and agreed. But at this point things are rather casual. He said by the standard compass, but was he translating it to true? How solid is the ENE in the first place? A glance at the compass. Now you are trying to remember it a few days later. If you take a bearing SSE true from Lord's calculated stop position it takes you pretty close to the Titanic wreck site. That is what I think happened. Recall Groves also testified the ship he saw was about south. If by compass then it was about SSE true. Stone is serious when he takes these repeated bearings. He is now following his captain's orders to let him know if the nearby ship alters her bearing. He is performing his professional duties. First it was about south by compass (my thought), and then about southwest when she had steamed out of sight. I'm not convinced Stone was off by 45 or more degrees.

Now I realize others strongly disagree with my interpretation. It is not going to be solved to everyone's satisfaction on this thread or website. I met Sam Halpern about ten years ago at a convention in Boston. He is a fine gentleman and very intelligent as well as quite friendly. I see now he has written a whole book on the subject. Hopefully in time I'll buy a copy and read it. None of knows how long we will live so I can't guarantee it. I may not be convinced by Sam's analysis but it will be good intellectual exercise for me to thoughtfully examine it. I won't be posting too much because of other commitments, but I do hope to read more of the threads. Overall I'm in agreement with Captain Jim Currie's analysis of the whole Californian stop position and succeeding events. I believe in being respectful of others who take a different viewpoint. So you won't hear too much from me, but I will read some of the threads.

 

[AlexP]

Paul, I do not agree with either Sam or Jim. I believe that the Californian and the Titanic were drifting each in their own set of currents. I believe that at first they were approaching and then leaving each other. This theory explains almost everything that Sam cannot explain.

 

[Jim Currie]

First of all, it is refreshing to see input from a member who is anxious to achieve consensus... a member who, as far as I remember, never has had a Eureka! moment or an Axe to grind. (My "Axe" is a simple one... to see justice done).

Alex. Your last remark puts all our problems in a nutshell.

If there is not a "fits-all" explanation or an explanation that "fits" a preconception, then the fall back is ignore and repeat on the basis that if something is repeated often enough and loudly enough then it must be accepted as the solution.

Lets take your idea..

." that the Californian and the Titanic were drifting each in their own set of currents. I believe that at first they were approaching and then leaving each other. "
I am not going to rubbish it...However I'll let Boxhall's answers on Day 13 of the UK Inquiry do it for me. Don't worry though, you are in good company, because it rubbishes a great deal of the rest of the nonsense that has been postulated on the subject. Think carefully about the following:

"15392. And then you saw this light which you say looked like a masthead light?
- Yes, it was two masthead lights of a steamer.
15393. Could you see it distinctly with the naked eye?
- No, I could see the light with the naked eye, but I could not define what it was, but by the aid of a pair of glasses I found it was the two masthead lights of a vessel, probably about half a point on the port bow, and in the position she would be showing her red if it were visible, but she was too far off then."

The foregoing was Boxhall's first sighting of the reported light. The time on Californian was probably around 12-15 am.
At 12-15 am, Gibson had just arrived on the upper bridge and he and his boss, Stone, were sipping hot coffee and looking out over the starboard side toward the mystery vessel in sight. Their faces might even have been slightly tinged with green reflection from the starboard side light of the Californian which would have been shining in the same direction
Californian did not show her red light toward the direction of the nearby stopped vessel for at least another 2 hours... until a few minutes before Gibson saw the last signal fired by Titanic.

Not only does the foregoing evidence stop your current-swirl theory , but it also sinks all the other nonsense that has been concocted about the Californian.

Now I would like to see a sensible rebuttal of this evidence, but I won't hold my breath

 

[AlexP]

15392. And then you saw this light which you say looked like a masthead light?
- Yes, it was two masthead lights of a steamer.
15393. Could you see it distinctly with the naked eye?
- No, I could see the light with the naked eye, but I could not define what it was, but by the aid of a pair of glasses I found it was the two masthead lights of a vessel, probably about half a point on the port bow, and in the position she would be showing her red if it were visible, but she was too far off then."

The foregoing was Boxhall's first sighting of the reported light. The time on Californian was probably around 12-15 am.

Jim, this one is the easiest one to explain.
This testimony was given in UK, a month or so after the disaster.
Here is what Mr. Boxhall testified in the USA:

Senator BURTON.
Which light did you see first?

Mr. BOXHALL.
I saw the masthead lights first, the two steaming lights; and then, as she drew up closer, I saw her side lights through my glasses, and eventually I saw the red light. I had seen the green, but I saw the red most of the time. I saw the red light with my naked eye.

And later:

Senator BURTON.
Afterward you saw the green light, which showed that she had turned?

Mr. BOXHALL.
I think I saw the green light before I saw the red light, as a matter of fact. But the ship was meeting us. I am covering the whole thing by saying the ship was meeting us.

So, in UK Mr. Boxhall was mistaking about seeing the red first.

While we are talking about this, Jim, could you please tell me if a professional Mariner as Mr. Boxhall was, could have mistook the swinging Californian with an approaching steamer?

 

[Julian Atkins]

Hello Paul,

I am very pleased to see you posting again on here.

I have made a particular study of every single post you have made on here, as firstly you made a particular contribution about the Parisian and a particular contribution about The Californian's cargo, and secondly you have always been most courteous and open and objective in your posts.

We are in difficulties in dealing with lots of current threads on The Californian, and discussion of Sam's new book etc.

Paul, I think you will find Sam's new book of considerable interest.

I do hope you will participate again as fully as you have done so in the past.

As an bit of an aside, I seem from memory to recall a reference by you to having a recording on disc of the Captain lord 1961 taped interview transcripts... if my memory is correct I would be very interested if you could make a copy available to me.

Cheers,
Julian

 

[Jim Currie]

Jim, this one is the easiest one to explain.
This testimony was given in UK, a month or so after the disaster.
Here is what Mr. Boxhall testified in the USA:

Senator BURTON.
Which light did you see first?

Mr. BOXHALL.
I saw the masthead lights first, the two steaming lights; and then, as she drew up closer, I saw her side lights through my glasses, and eventually I saw the red light. I had seen the green, but I saw the red most of the time. I saw the red light with my naked eye.

And later:

Senator BURTON.
Afterward you saw the green light, which showed that she had turned?

Mr. BOXHALL.
I think I saw the green light before I saw the red light, as a matter of fact. But the ship was meeting us. I am covering the whole thing by saying the ship was meeting us.

So, in UK Mr. Boxhall was mistaking about seeing the red first.

While we are talking about this, Jim, could you please tell me if a professional Mariner as Mr. Boxhall was, could have mistook the swinging Californian with an approaching steamer?

Alex, Your evidence reinforces Boxhall's UK evidence.
"Senator BURTON.
Which light did you see first?...I saw the masthead lights first, the two steaming lights;
When steamers became more plentiful on the sea, the powers -that- be decided that they should carry an extra light to differentiate them from sailing vessels which do not and did not carry a white masthead light (except if and when they had a steam engine and were using it.).
Then someone had the simple, but brilliant idea that if two white lights were carried and the front one was lower than the rear one, then an observer seeing them at a maximum range could get a very good idea what coloured light would be seen if the vessel showing the 2 white lights was closer. These white lights (the ones we are discussing) were termed "Range Lights). That is exactly what Boxhall was telling his questioners , you and everyone else who cares to think about it. Here is a rough idea of what the man was describing:

What you and everyone else has to accept is the fact that even if Californian was performing the "Dance of The Sugarplum Fairies" in a swirling current....the vessel being describes by Boxhall as illustrated above could never have been the SS Californian. Simply because at that moment in time. Californian was showing a green sidelight in the direction of the nearby stopped vessel.
However, if Boxhall HAD seen Californian through his glasses at that very time, the following is what he would have seen:

 

[AlexP]

Jim, in the USA Mr. Boxhall testified he saw the green first

Senator BURTON.
Afterward you saw the green light, which showed that she had turned?

Mr. BOXHALL.
I think I saw the green light before I saw the red light, as a matter of fact. But the ship was meeting us. I am covering the whole thing by saying the ship was meeting us.

So how you could say that his US testimony reinforces his UK testimony?
In the first quote I provided above he clearly stated that he was able to see the red with his naked eye, which also means that he saw the red after he saw the green.

 

[Jim Currie]

I'm trying, Alex... but it's a hard up-hill fight.

Let me have once last go at trying to educate you in things nautical.
Neither Boxhallor any other clear-sighted individual on Titanic or on any other ship for that matter, could, ever, have seen a coloured side light or lights before he or they saw any white masthead lights on any ship, let alone Californian. Not unless the former were switched on before the latter. or the mastheads were shrouded in mist and or smoke. Surely you don't suggest that?

1. In the US Senator Fletcher asked Boxhall the first question about the light seen from Titanic...and requested him to describe what he first saw., To which, Boxhall replied: at first I saw two masthead lights of a steamer, just slightly opened, and later she got closer to us, until, eventually, I could see her side lights with my naked eye.
2. In the UK he was intensively questioned about the light first seen ahead
Thre he replied:
15385. I heard someone report a light, a light ahead. I went on the bridge and had a look to see what the light was. Yes, I saw a light...15388.
- It was two masthead lights of a steamer. But before I saw this light I went to the chart room and worked out the ship's position.392. And then you saw this light which you say looked like a masthead light?
- Yes, it was two masthead lights of a steamer.
15393. Could you see it distinctly with the naked eye?
- No, I could see the light with the naked eye, but I could not define what it was, but by the aid of a pair of glasses I found it was the two masthead lights of a vessel, probably about half a point on the port bow, and in the position she would be showing her red if it were visible, but she was too far off then...15392. it was two masthead lights of a steamer.
15393. Could you see it distinctly with the naked eye?
- No, I could see the light with the naked eye, but I could not define what it was, but by the aid of a pair of glasses I found it was the two masthead lights of a vessel, probably about half a point on the port bow, and in the position she would be showing her red if it were visible, but she was too far off then."
Apart from taking his questioner by the hand and time-travelling back to the moment and showing him (and you and everyone else) Or taking a picture of it on his "smart phone", Boxhall could not have painted a clearer picture of that moment in time, which as I said earlier , had to be around the time that Stone and Gibson were looking at a vessel on the starboard beam of the Californian. Anyone staring back at the two of them from that ship would have very clearly seen a green side light and two white masthead lights.

NOW do you and everyone else understand?

Boxhall was not describing the SS Californian... This evidence stands alone, separate from the "moving vessel" evidence

 

[AlexP]

Let me have once last go at trying to educate you in things nautical.
Neither Boxhallor any other clear-sighted individual on Titanic or on any other ship for that matter, could, ever, have seen a coloured side light or lights before he or they saw any white masthead lights on any ship, let alone Californian. Not unless the former were switched on before the latter. or the mastheads were shrouded in mist and or smoke. Surely you don't suggest that?

Jim, of course I do not suggest that, and Mr. Boxhall has never testified that he saw a sidelight before he saw masthead lights.
Let us forget about the testimony he gave in England.
In the USA he clearly stated he saw the green before he saw the red.
Could you please explain what is wrong with that?