The position of Stone's first "Flash" relative to the nearby vessel.
- Thread starter Jim Currie
- Start date
But lifeboat # 1 was being launched from the starboard side. Was it possible to see the sidelights from the starboard side?
In any case, he could have been mistaking either about the time or about seeing the sidelight.
Maybe he was hearing everybody saw the red one and then their memory became his memory, or maybe he mistook a star with a sidelight.
See, one should not take a single testimony, make his conclusion based on it while completely ignoring other testimonies.
Besides, Sam will tell you that Mt. Lowe's testimony proves the Californian was swinging retrograde.
In any case, he could have been mistaking either about the time or about seeing the sidelight.
Maybe he was hearing everybody saw the red one and then their memory became his memory, or maybe he mistook a star with a sidelight.
See, one should not take a single testimony, make his conclusion based on it while completely ignoring other testimonies.
Besides, Sam will tell you that Mt. Lowe's testimony proves the Californian was swinging retrograde.
And you are probably right.
Jim Currie
Member
a shooting star "streaks" through the sky leaving a tail behind it. A "falling star" moves much slower. You can actually see a video of one on line. I'm surprised that with your sea-time. Rob, you don't remember that.
However Stone very plainly stated " I saw one white flash in the sky," He also wrote: "I observed a flash of light", so he didn't see a "falling star". The stars of a distress rocket "fall", they do not "flash", so he did not see a distress rocket. It's not rocket science, Rob.
Stone did not say he saw a "shooting star or a star of any kind, in fact he said " I did not know what it was" As an afterthought, he added " I thought it might be a shooting star.". You don't have an "afterthought " while watching the stars of a distress rocket of any colour descending slowly seaward.
Even kids on Guy Fox night or on the Fourth of July know that.
Jim Currie
Member
You really should sift the evidence.
Boxhall: "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. "
He saw that just after he had sent his distress signal, when the time aboard the SS Californian was no more than 12-15 am. and Gibson had just arrived beside Stone.
At that same time, Titanic was showing a green light in the direction of the vessel seen by Boxhall while Gibson and Stone on the Californian had a vessel showing a red light on the starboard beam. Boxhall should have seen Californian's green light, not her red one.
5Th n)fficer Lowe you know about.as Lookut Walter Wynne who was in boat 9
" 13337. What light or lights did you see?... - I saw a red light first, and then the red light disappeared, and I saw a white one.2
If Wynne saw a red sidelight when he was in Boat 9, and he was seeing Californian, then he must have seen it after the penultimate rocket was fired nd Californian could not have been much more than 9 miles away at least 3 crew members saw a red light, 2 of them long before Californian ever showed a red light in the direction of the Titanic. .
This is a great example of the witness contradicting not only another witness but himself.
Here's what Mr. Boxhall said:
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.
Clearly Mr. Boxhall was confused, when he stated: "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."
With this I agree. The steamers (the Titanic and the Californian) were around 10 miles away at some point during the night. Mr. Wynne's testimony is confusing, but Mr. Boxhall testified that he saw both sidelights, and so did the survivors from the lifeboat # 8. They saw both sidelights at the same time, (the only time the Californian was showing her both sidelights in the direction of the Titanic). It was before 1:45, maybe somewhere around 1:30-1:40. The lifeboat #8 was launched at 1 a.m. She could not have traveled far away from the Titanic in 30-40 minutes.
Here's a small video of firework . The first clip Is the original, the second clip right after it shows some flashes of light, and of course in this video the camera was much closer to the source, and the firework was much more powerful.a shooting star "streaks" through the sky leaving a tail behind it. A "falling star" moves much slower. You can actually see a video of one on line. I'm surprised that with your sea-time. Rob, you don't remember that.
However Stone very plainly stated " I saw one white flash in the sky," He also wrote: "I observed a flash of light", so he didn't see a "falling star". The stars of a distress rocket "fall", they do not "flash", so he did not see a distress rocket. It's not rocket science, Rob.
Stone did not say he saw a "shooting star or a star of any kind, in fact he said " I did not know what it was" As an afterthought, he added " I thought it might be a shooting star.". You don't have an "afterthought " while watching the stars of a distress rocket of any colour descending slowly seaward.
Even kids on Guy Fox night or on the Fourth of July know that.
It is very rare when a shooting star leaves any tail behind it. If you see one in real time you will see a streak if it is dark enough, but if it is not dark enough, or you've missed on it, you would see only a flash of light because it is brighter that the streak as it is shown here, This flash could stay visible a little bit longer. Look Out For ‘Fireballs’ This Halloween As Moonless Meteor Shower Peaks In The Witching Hour
Yes, the firework stars are falling slower, and that is why both Mr. Stone and Mr. Gibson eventually and correctly identified them as rockets, but the first flash, was the star falling after the explosion. He did not see the explosion itself. He saw that flash just before it disappeared.
Last edited:
Julian Atkins
Member
Hi Jim,
You are really going over old ground here as all this was discussed 'ad nauseam' on the 'Captain Lord Guilty as charged' thread.
Lowe only 'glanced'. He also provided an affidavit subsequently adding more details and the Titanic was pointing north, contradicting Boxhall.
All this is expertly explained and commented upon in Sam's new book, that deals with ALL the evidence.
Incidentally, and much to my surprise, Sam does a bit of a 'hatchet job' on Boxhall's evidence over many years in his new book, with precise textual analysis and much else besides that is compelling.
(I have always been of the view Boxhall was a 'dodgy' witness, and may have been ill at the time subsequently developing a form of pleurisy. He was only interested in securing his own employment with White Star, and his Company pension, and had a penny pinching 'parsimonious' approach to his own expenses for the British Inquiry that extended into old age when arguing with correspondents over the cost of his postage when replying to them. He directly implicated Captain Lord and The Californian in 1959 and 1962).
Cheers,
Julian
You are really going over old ground here as all this was discussed 'ad nauseam' on the 'Captain Lord Guilty as charged' thread.
Lowe only 'glanced'. He also provided an affidavit subsequently adding more details and the Titanic was pointing north, contradicting Boxhall.
All this is expertly explained and commented upon in Sam's new book, that deals with ALL the evidence.
Incidentally, and much to my surprise, Sam does a bit of a 'hatchet job' on Boxhall's evidence over many years in his new book, with precise textual analysis and much else besides that is compelling.
(I have always been of the view Boxhall was a 'dodgy' witness, and may have been ill at the time subsequently developing a form of pleurisy. He was only interested in securing his own employment with White Star, and his Company pension, and had a penny pinching 'parsimonious' approach to his own expenses for the British Inquiry that extended into old age when arguing with correspondents over the cost of his postage when replying to them. He directly implicated Captain Lord and The Californian in 1959 and 1962).
Cheers,
Julian
Last edited:
Julian Atkins
Member
Hi Steven.
If you would care to buy Sam's new book you will see that your assessment of the MAIB report is not accurate, and furthermore Sam conclusively proves that de Coverley's report for the MAIB is considerably flawed.
Cheers,
Julian
Steven Stuart
Member
Hi Julian, great to 'talk' with you again (so to speak),
With the greatest of respect (and I mean that sincerely), I don't get the seeming disconnect between where Titanic foundered and where Californian stopped engines that previous night... both are known beyond any reasonable doubt - Titanic foundered at 41° 43N, 49° 56W whilst Californian stopped at 42° 05N, 50° 07W - and the distance between the two is approximately 19.25 nautical miles (22 statute miles)... what's the issue?
I've read Sam's paper on the supposed discrepancies of Californian's position that evening... but I just don't buy it; granted I have zero marine or naval experience, but wouldn't the bridge crew of the Californian on the night in question have a better and more relatively closer approximation of their location than an armchair navigator a century after the fact? And isn't there a chain-of-command process on the bridge for checking and re-checking courses set? Perhaps Jim can educate me on this better. If there is, how on earth could the entire bridge crew of Californian on multiple watches get it so wrong as to take such a sharp turn south to end up in Titanic's visible horizon line? I don't understand, maybe I'm missing something here and too stupid to see it...
If it was Californian seen from Titanic, why did lookouts Fred Fleet and Reginald Lee not see her lying motionless in the water throughout the night? Californian may have swung somewhat over the course of time in the drift... but not THAT fast as to appear to be approaching the stricken White Star Liner, stop, turn around, and sail off into the distance (as described by Joseph Boxhall)... that dog just don't hunt, as the Americans would say!
With the greatest of respect (and I mean that sincerely), I don't get the seeming disconnect between where Titanic foundered and where Californian stopped engines that previous night... both are known beyond any reasonable doubt - Titanic foundered at 41° 43N, 49° 56W whilst Californian stopped at 42° 05N, 50° 07W - and the distance between the two is approximately 19.25 nautical miles (22 statute miles)... what's the issue?
I've read Sam's paper on the supposed discrepancies of Californian's position that evening... but I just don't buy it; granted I have zero marine or naval experience, but wouldn't the bridge crew of the Californian on the night in question have a better and more relatively closer approximation of their location than an armchair navigator a century after the fact? And isn't there a chain-of-command process on the bridge for checking and re-checking courses set? Perhaps Jim can educate me on this better. If there is, how on earth could the entire bridge crew of Californian on multiple watches get it so wrong as to take such a sharp turn south to end up in Titanic's visible horizon line? I don't understand, maybe I'm missing something here and too stupid to see it...
If it was Californian seen from Titanic, why did lookouts Fred Fleet and Reginald Lee not see her lying motionless in the water throughout the night? Californian may have swung somewhat over the course of time in the drift... but not THAT fast as to appear to be approaching the stricken White Star Liner, stop, turn around, and sail off into the distance (as described by Joseph Boxhall)... that dog just don't hunt, as the Americans would say!
Last edited:
There is a very good possibility the Titanic and the Californian were drifting in the different set of currents. The Californian could have been really approaching and later leaving the Titanic.
Jim Currie
Member
Hello Julian.
I have to say it. This last post of your does you no credit whatsoever. An "Expert" in any field does not take 16 years to assess technical evidence.
As for your opinion of Boxhall? By voicing that, you exhibit your lack of expertise. In much the same way as would any other "expert" who uses the relative movement between 2 vessel to determine a heading without reference to a compass.
Jim Currie
Member
Rubbish! The ship seen from the Titanic was moving. It was seen at a distance using binoculars and finally 5 to 7 miles away with the naked eye. Multiple witnesses saw this. Three witnesses saw a red light when Californian was still showing a green one. If, as the evidence indicates, that vessel was on an easterly course and approaching the west side of the ice barrier, then her captain would have been doing as did the Captain of the Mount Temple - altering courses right and left to avoid ice. That is why Boxhall saw both the coloured sidelights of the vessel approaching the sinking Titanic. The nonsense being perpetuated on these pages is the idea that a man with an Extra Master's Certificate was unable to differentiate between a moving ship and a stopped one and unable to make a reasonably accurate determination of separation between his ship and another
I suggest that you and all the self-styled "Experts" on these pages, read the regulations and the following pages. In doing so, you and they will learn that even a First Year Apprentice or Cadet has more knowledge about "How Is She Heading" than most of the contributors to this argument.
I suggest that you and others read the following, inwardly digest then apply your newfound knowledge to the evidence. That is what a Professional Expert has done then gone on to perfect the knowledge by practice. When you have done so, then you have enough knowledge to argue the point instead or resorting to imaginary currents and/or disregarding that which does not fit a pre-conceived notion..
" Range lights plural : two white lights in the same vertical plane as the keel with one at least fifteen feet higher than and horizontally distant from the other that may be carried by a steamer under way to indicate her course."
It is not rubbish. There is multiple evidence that prove that there were unusual eddy currents during the disaster, and yes, thanks to Mila I am almost an expert in regards to the currents and to common sense. Eddies explain almost everything that is hard to impossible to explain otherwise.
Are you alleging that the survivors saw the Mount Temple approaching? Then why Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stone saw the rockets, and both were sure they were fiered from the steamer they watched and the navigational lines but nobody from the Mount Temple did?
Similar threads
