Titanic Safety Speed and Sacrifice by George Behe

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo, Randy!

I do not think there are any really serious "flaws" in George's work, which is not what I'd call a "booklet," by the way.

Randy, m’dear, I hope you don’t think that my use of the term ‘booklet’ was in any way derogatory? It was intended as a descriptive term, not a perjorative — my Oxford Dictionary simply describes a booklet as ‘a small, thin usually paper-covered book’. I have several titles I describe as booklets that are prized parts of my Titanic collection — it refers to the size, not the merits of the content. And, as you see by the defintion, it doesn’t preclude the work being a ‘book’! I also think it's a bit of a shame that what I intended as helpful suggestions on my part have been taken as an attack.

George’s work is based on his interpretation of material. I disagree with his interpretation of some of this material. That’s my right, y’know…the data we have is so far from being complete or objective that George can’t prove his theory, and I can’t disprove it. Should he produce evidence that satisfies me, I’ll happily adopt his theory as fact and chuck the canonical version. I’m sure you and everyone else likewise keeps an open mind about the possibility that George’s interpretation of the material is not the correct one. Does that sound fair?

All the best,

Inger

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Inger,

I realize the term "booklet" may apply technically but to me it infers something insubstantial. I take your word that you did not mean it in this regard.

As to George's particular slant - no, I realize his MAY not be the correct interpretation, though my opinion is that it is very much nearer the mark than others. I don't believe George or Senan or anyone else ever can be the final word on the issue of the Californian. As both men will surely agree, there are just too many intricacies and inconsistencies for the matter to be settled to mutual satisfaction.

Inger, I think you bring up valid points as always and you know you have my respect.

I was just wanting mainly to make a general statement that errors occur no matter how methodical and careful one is. They are not neccessarily an indication of shoddy research.

In George's own case, surely he knows better than anyone what inaccuracies he will need to correct in a future edition of his book.

All my best for the holidays,

Randy

 

[Tracy Smith]

Randy said:

. I don't believe George or Senan or anyone else ever can be the final word on the issue of the Californian. As both men will surely agree, there are just too many intricacies and inconsistencies for the matter to be settled to mutual satisfaction.

Amen to that! I agree completely. And because this is so, everyone's input is valuable. I recently finished reading "The Ship That Stood Still" and "A Titanic Myth" by interlibrary loan, and I found both books to be outstanding, even though my opinion leans strongly to the Lord side. Now I want my own copies of both books!

 

[Jonathon Jedd]

Michael: We may be saying the same thing in different words. What you perceive as Fleet's likely mindset is pretty much what I envisioned while reading George's book. I recalled that description of Fleet repeatedly looking to Ismay, and imagined that what might have been going through his head at each glance was something akin to "How'm I doin', boss?" ;-)

Inger: My apologies if I misunderstood your intent. Regarding your excerpt from Reade, what strikes me is Fleet's significant use of the phrase "that BLACK thing!" Because of this descriptor, it occurs to me that his account is not necessarily inconsistent with George's premise. Presumeably what Fleet was describing was a "black berg" -- a relatively rare entity, as I understand it, which he might never have seen before. And he couldn't comprehend what his eyes revealed. (Nor could Lee, according to Fleet.)

Much depends, of course, on the individual's interpretation of this account. But it's certainly conceivable -- to me, at least -- that Fleet could have spotted and recognized a hundred "normal" (white) icebergs prior to that point and still been mystified by "this black thing", if a "black berg" was indeed outside the scope of his experience.

JJ

 

[George Behe]

Hi, Jonathon!

Would you mind dropping me an email at my Compuserve address? ([email protected]) If you'd care to trust me with your snail mail address, there's something I'd like to send to you. Many thanks, old chap.

Randy wrote:

>We can only present a story as honestly as possible. Facts will
>always at some point elude us. We just have to do our best. George >certinly did his, whatever
>his critics may feel about his particular angle on the story.

Hi, Randy!

That pretty much says it all, old chap. The fact that much of my evidence was relayed through intermediaries is the reason why I can't (at this point anyway) *prove* that my book's three main premises are true; nevertheless, I still feel that my evidence (weaknesses and all) is too important *not* to have presented it for the consideration of my fellow researchers.

Take care, my friend.

Parks wrote (and Michael concurred with):

>If the book does go to a
>revised edition, though, I would like to the see the "Titanic at sea" >photo annotated as being a
>composite picture, because otherwise it gives the reader the impression >that that photo is real.

Hi, Parks and Michael!

I agree. I was absolutely horrified when I realized that the illustration's caption had been truncated by the publisher, and that's the very first correction I'd make if the book were ever to see a second edition. (That'll never happen, though -- the book will go out of print long before the demand for a second edition ever materializes.)

Take care, guys.

Inger quoted Fred Fleet and Leslie Reade:

(Fleet):

>"I asked Lee if he knew what it was," said Fleet, "He couldn’t say. I >thought I better right the
>bell. I rang it three times......."

(Reade):

>If the Titanic had been dodging bergs prior to the fatal one, I find it >difficult to believe that Fleet
>would have needed to ask his colleague what the ‘black thing’ was.

Unless I'm mistaken, the above paragraphs are the key points that you feel counter my book's premise that Fred Fleet warned the bridge of three 'early' icebergs. You feel that Fleet's hesitation at warning the bridge about the fatal iceberg caused him to feel guilty about it later on and to make up excuses to cover up his laxness. It's possible, of course, but IMO that doesn't explain why White Star would offer Fleet (and Hichens, and Walter Lord's informant) a "lifetime job with good pay." I've never heard of another shipping line that ever made such a wonderful offer to its shipwrecked employees (whether or not such offers were ever honored), and I doubt very much that such an offer stemmed from kindness or sympathy.

Some people have expressed the opinion that, if Fleet had indeed seen three 'early' icebergs before 11:40 pm, he would have known that the object directly ahead of the Titanic was *another* iceberg and would not have wondered what it was or hesitated before warning the bridge of the berg's presence.

I don't think the above opinion necessarily holds water, though. We know from Rostron's testimony that at least *some* icebergs were visible to the Carpathia (and readily identifiable as icebergs) at a range of about two miles. The long-range visibility of some of these bergs might well have depended upon their height, color, reflectivity etc. If at least *some* bergs could be seen from the Carpathia at a range of two miles, there is no reason for us to think that similar bergs (of the same height and possessing similar physical characteristics) could not have been seen by the Titanic's lookouts at roughly the same range.

Titanic's lookouts had been warned to expect ice encounters any time after 11 pm, and the Senate ice chart *proves* that Titanic *did* steam through a belt of outlying icebergs for some time prior to the actual collision. That being the case, Fleet and Lee might have been expected to see at least *some* of these outlying bergs (the readily-identifiable ones, anyway) at the same long range that Captain Rostron saw similar bergs from his own vessel. However, when Fleet and Lee suddenly saw a dark object ahead of the Titanic (an object whose appearance -- due to a difference in height? color? reflectivity? -- differed from the readily-identifiable icebergs that could be seen at long range), I can easily see why the two lookouts might have hesitated for a moment and wondered what the heck they were looking at. By the time they realized what the dark object actually was, though, it was too late for the Titanic to avoid it.

I wrote:

>.....if you know how Hichens actually spent his later years (assuming >that my own information is inaccurate, that is), I'd be glad to see your >information."

You replied:

>How specific was your source?

I've misplaced my "Tidbits" file which contains the raw data I used to write my "Tidbits 2" pamphlet as well as "Safety, Speed and Sacrifice," but I don't recall Blum being more specific than saying that it was 1914 when he ran into the Titanic's QM in Cape Town.

>I’d be happy to attempt to help you confirm or disprove it if you
>have an exact date, etc. for when and where the encounter took place.

Thanks very much for your offer, but I'm afraid the year 1914 is the best I can do (at the moment, anyway.) However, I believe Phil Gowan is currently in the process of tracking down Hichens; given Phil's uncanny ability to ferret out these Titanic-related people, I don't think we'll have to wait very long before we'll find out if Hichens truly lived in South Africa in 1914. Even so, I'd be very grateful for any assistance you might be able to render in discovering Hichens' true whereabouts during that time period.

>Of course, you are quite
>entitled to differ with me on the validity of the points raised by Dave.

I don't necessarily differ with you or Dave on these points, but I certainly can't accept those points at face value without seeing any supporting documentation.

>At no point does in
>T:SS&S, to my recollection, does George investigate the possibility that >Fleet and Lee might
>have a motivation other than coercion and/or bribery from the WSL for >changing their story from
>that attributed to them on the Carpathia.

That's true. The two independent accounts which alleged that White Star offered identical bribes to both Fleet and Hichens caused me to refrain from engaging in nebulous speculation about other reasons why the lookouts might have stopped telling their 'early iceberg' story; even with their inherent uncertainty, I felt that two *independent*, *corroborative* accounts concerning possible bribery were worth far more than mere speculation that might -- or might not -- apply to the men in question.

>No matter how blameless they were in the situation, they must have
>feared scapegoating from the passengers and even fellow crewmen - how >easy, then, to blame
>the men on duty on the Bridge who - being dead - weren't in much of a >position
>to contradict them.

Would the lookouts have made such false accusations knowing full well that Boxhall and Olliver had survived the disaster and would be able to contradict their lies? I don't think so (although you may disagree.) Fleet was still seated in his lifeboat when he told Major Peuchen that the bridge had not replied to his ice warning; that's pretty early in the game for Fleet to be making such comments if they weren't true.

>I felt that too much of the material was drawn from second hand, often
>garbled accounts,

Perhaps I was looking for information in the wrong places, Inger; I'd be grateful if you could point me toward some untapped *primary* sources that mention the lookouts' early iceberg sightings.

All my best,

George

 

[George Behe]

Hi, Jonathon!

>Much depends, of course, on the individual's >interpretation of this account. But it's >certainly
>conceivable -- to me, at least -- that Fleet >could have spotted and recognized a hundred
>"normal" (white) icebergs prior to that point and >still been mystified by "this black thing", if a
>"black berg" was indeed outside the scope of his >experience.

My own comments were not expressed as succinctly as yours, but I think we were thinking the same thoughts.

Take care, old chap.

All my best,

George

 

[Jonathon Jedd]

Wow, a Christmas present from George Behe!

Thanks very much, George! I'll email you shortly.
JJ

 

[Inger Sheil]

G'day, George!

Unless I'm mistaken, the above paragraphs are the key points that you feel counter my book's premise that Fred Fleet warned the bridge of three 'early'icebergs.

Well no...that's not the key point that I feel counters your books premise Indeed, I wasn't even aware of the full text of the exchange until quite recently, when I was given a copy of Reade's book and was able to compare your paraphrasing of the exchange with the original as Reade recorded it.

I'm uneasy with a theory that relies upon two witnesses who were themselves key players in the events rather than disinterested observers, and who have left a range of accounts that have been filtered through the perceptions of others. My uneasiness increases given that your sources are frequently garbled newspaper accounts and hearsay, and that these require some tailoring to fit them all into the same mould. Put bluntly, Fleet and Lee had opportunity and motive to lie even without any WSL pressure (either way you cut it, they were liars - either they lied to defend themselves, or they lied to defend the WSL). I also find it rather problematic that you essentially tell people how they are to read the evidence rather than let them decide for themselves — you state, for example, that Peuchen ‘misunderstood Fleet’. How can you demonstrate this? Do you have a recording of what Fleet said precisely? Fleet may well have said to Peuchen exactly what Peuchen thought he said. You state as a fact that: ‘Miss Birkhead’s basic information is true’ (pg 49) that the bridge officers failed to respond to warnings . This is not a established fact — it is your theory. You dismiss the recurring theme of officers not having been on the bridge at all (after all, this is easily disproven), but I think it just as likely that rather than having survivors ‘misunderstand’ this was another element of the tale that Fleet and Lee were telling. On page 45 we have a quote that Miss Young or the reporter ‘clearly’ misunderstood her original source. Not necessarily — given the atmosphere of gossip and rumour on the Carpathia, it is just as possible Miss Young heard exactly what she reported — that it was thefatal iceberg that was sighted well beforehand. Or, if garbling has occurred, it could have been that she heard a distorted version of the wireless warnings received beforehand. Then there’s the amount of tailoring you’ve have to subject these accounts to — sheering them of moonlight, absentee officers, and explaining away Whitely’s claim to have heard the conversation while atop B. This is one of the problems when dealing with gossip, hearsay and rumourmongering —it can all originate from the one source, and how can you demonstrate that the source is legitimate? Particularly when that source — the Titanic’s lookouts — had sufficient motive for wishing to deflect blame (if you were the lookout on the Titanic when she struck a berg on a clear night, wouldn’t you - whether wholly innocent or not — fear being scapegoated?).

George wrote:

You feel that Fleet's hesitation at warning the bridge about the fatal iceberg caused him to feel guilty about it later on and to make up excuses to cover up his laxness. It's possible, of course, but IMO that doesn't explain why White Star would offer Fleet (and Hichens, and Walter Lord's informant) a "lifetime job with good pay." I've never heard of another shipping line that ever made such a wonderful offer to its shipwrecked employees (whether or not such offers were ever honored), and I doubt very much that such an offer stemmed from kindness or sympathy.

You state that the WSL offered these jobs as if it were an established fact, but I remain singularly unconvinced on the material you've offered that this is the case. Fleet — in yet another indirect account — did not cite three prior icewarnings, and I regard Hichens as, at the very least, dubious in the extreme. You haven't offered any reason why the WSL would renege on its promise to Fleet and yet fulfill it to Hichens, when Fleet was potentially far more damaging. Why, if he was betrayed by the Line, would he continue to remain faithful to them by not disclosing such damaging evidence, even to sympathetic researchers such as Reade - even long after the line itself had ceased to exist? I doubt it.

George wrote:

Some people have expressed the opinion that, if Fleet had indeed seen three 'early' icebergs before 11:40 pm, he would have known that the object directly ahead of the Titanic was *another* iceberg and would not have wondered what it was or hesitated before warning the bridge of the berg's presence.

I don't think the above opinion necessarily holds water, though.

I do. Black berg or not, I strongly believe that, had they been sighting bergs prior to the fatal one, they would have been hyper-alert to potential risks ahead. I do not believe they would not have hesitated in order to debate what the object was when they saw another dark mass - this time directly ahead - whatever its shape or colour.

George wrote:

I've misplaced my "Tidbits" file which contains the raw data I used to write my "Tidbits 2" pamphlet as well as "Safety, Speed and Sacrifice," but I don't recall Blum being more specific than saying that it was 1914 when he ran into the Titanic's QM in Cape Town.

Hichens has proved so interesting I’m going to start another thread for him under crew.

George wrote:

Thanks very much for your offer, but I'm afraid the year 1914 is the best I can do (at the moment, anyway.) However, I believe Phil Gowan is currently in the process of tracking down Hichens; given Phil's uncanny ability to ferret out these Titanic-related people, I don't think we'll have to wait very long before we'll find out if Hichens truly lived in South Africa in 1914. Even so, I'd be very grateful for any assistance you might be able to render in discovering Hichens' true whereabouts during that time period.

Phil's tracking him down? Kewl! I'll just keep an eye out for him, then, and offer my assistance to either you or Phil should you need a London pair of legs. I don't claim to have Phil's skills at passenger and crew research (my focus is a good deal narrower than his as well), but as you know there are a number of good sites here in London that hold materials such as crew agreements, official logs and BOT documents etc, and I'll be back at them with a will come February (no doubt the January break away from it all will do me good). Anyway, our discussion has generated some information already — I’ll include that under the new thread when I start it.

George wrote:

I don't necessarily differ with you or Dave on these points, but I certainly can't accept those points at face value without seeing any supporting documentation.

Given that I find it unlikely that an unqualified man would be given the position he is said to have held, I can't accept the Hichens account at face value. ;-)

George wrote:

That's true. The two independent accounts which alleged that White Star offered identical bribes to both Fleet and Hichens caused me to refrain from engaging in nebulous speculation about other reasons why the lookouts might have stopped telling their 'early iceberg' story; even with their inherent uncertainty, I felt that two *independent*, *corroborative* accounts concerning possible bribery were worth far more than mere speculation that might -- or might not -- apply to the men in question.

Two secondhand accounts that are vague in the extreme - Hichens does not specify what events he was supposed to be covering up, and as for Fleet - well, you can pick which version of his tale you prefer . Rather than ascribe one possible interpretation to these events, I prefer to keep my options open, and critically assess the motives of the participants. I don't think these accounts really corroborate each other at all, except in as much as they both hint at bribery as part of a dark (unspecified in Hichens case)conspiracy. I used to see this all the time in politics - people liked to intimate that they were in the 'know', and in possession of 'privileged information'.

George wrote:

Would the lookouts have made such false accusations knowing full well that Boxhall and Olliver had survived the disaster and would be able to contradict their lies?

According to your version of events, they changed their stories in order to participate in a coverup even though they knew that they could be contradicted at the inquiry in front of Senator Smith by anyone on the Carpathia who had overheard them Their responses (and I believe that the version they told was probably not consistent) reads to me like a simple defensive posture. If challenged by a crewman or passenger as to how, as a lookout, they had failed to see the fatal berg in time, I think it's perfectly within the bounds of possibility and even probability that they immediately deflected criticism ('tweren't my fault, I did my job, it was the Bridge's fault'). It sounded to me that, whatever stories were told on the Carpathia, they were not broadcast widely but rather told to small groups and individuals - given that shipboard gossip (rife at any time) was a fever pitch, why should we or they suppose that Boxhall or Olliver would even hear these stories and single them out among all the other rumours?

However, telling a story in the confused aftermath of a disaster in an atmosphere riddled with rumour and gossip and publicly repeating it at a senatorial inquiry is an entirely different kettle of fish.

George wrote:

I don't think so (although you may disagree.) Fleet was still seated in his lifeboat when he told Major Peuchen that the bridge had not replied to his ice warning; that's pretty early in the game for Fleet to be making such comments if they weren't true.

I do indeed disagree. I think it's perfectly feasible that Fleet was already deflecting blame at this point - the ship has just sunk, he's the lookout...I can understand why he'd be a little anxious about the potential for being blamed. What's more, I don't think that Peuchen necessarily misunderstood what he heard, as you claim he did. I think this might be the early 'prototype' Fleet tale, which went through more than one incarnation as time went on.

George wrote:

Perhaps I was looking for information in the wrong places, Inger; I'd be grateful if you could point me toward some untapped *primary* sources that mention the lookouts' early iceberg sightings.

What - you're only interested in material that might support your theory rather than counter it? ;-) That's always the challenge with a conspiracy theory, George...how does one disprove a conspiracy when even the very lack of evidence is taken as evidence in itself? It is extraordinarily difficult to disprove that a meeting, for example, between Fleet and WSL officials took place, although it is pure conjecture on your part that it did. (If the account isn't there, why that just proves how deep the cover-up goes!). As it is, I think our discussion above goes to underline just how problematical this material is. Our reading of it is all based on our interpretation (and I'm not claiming my reading is more valid than yours, but I do claim equal validity for my interpretation). It's rather like theories on the identity of Jack the Ripper - researchers will take accounts, ideas and interpretations and weave them into theories...which wind up pointing the finger at different suspects. ;-)

All the best,

Inger

 

[George Behe]

Hi, Inger!

>I'm uneasy with a theory that relies upon two witnesses who were themselves key >players in the
>events rather than disinterested observers, and who have left a range of accounts >that have been
>filtered through the perceptions of others.

Well, as I've said repeatedly, that's the very reason why I've never claimed to have found the *definite* truth of the matter.

>Put bluntly, Fleet and Lee had opportunity and motive to lie even
>without any WSL pressure (either way you cut it, they were liars - either they lied >to defend
>themselves, or they lied to defend the WSL).

Bingo. My book argued the case for the second scenario based upon evidence that I've gathered together from widely-scattered sources over a very long period of time; if you should ever accumulate enough new evidence to do so, I hope you'll consider writing a book which argues the case for the first scenario.

>I also find it rather problematic that you essentially
>tell people how they are to read the evidence rather than let them decide for >themselves

I make no apologies for my presentation. My book quotes most of my key sources *verbatim* and then presents my own interpretation of that evidence. I feel that my readers are intelligent enough to examine my sources in a critical manner and then evaluate the merit of my interpretation for themselves. Some people will agree with my interpretation and some people won't. That's just the way it is (as you'll undoubtedly find out for yourself after your own Titanic book is published.)

>Fleet may well have said to Peuchen exactly
>what Peuchen thought he said.

True -- which of course opens up the possibility that Fleet was telling the truth to Peuchen and that he did not get a reply from the bridge when he attempted to phone Moody with his ice warning. Just out of curiosity, do you feel that Moody may have neglected to answer the bridge telephone in a timely manner (or indeed answer it at all?) What do you base your answer on?

>You dismiss the recurring theme of officers not having been on the bridge at
>all (after all, this is easily disproven),

This recurring theme (as well as one or two others) could easily have stemmed from a misinterpretation of what the lookouts actually said, and that is the position I take in my book. I don't think Fleet said a dozen different things to a dozen different people -- I think his basic (true) story got garbled by intermediaries as it passed down the 'food chain.' My book presents my own opinion about what it was that Fleet really said, and readers are free to evaluate my views and agree or disagree with them as they see fit. That's a healthy state of affairs.

>....(if you were the lookout on
>the Titanic when she struck a berg on a clear night, wouldn’t you - whether wholly >innocent or
>not — fear being scapegoated?).

Certainly, but -- on the other hand -- if you somehow found yourself in Fleet's position, just think how unjust such scapegoating would be if you had performed your duties properly and the dereliction of duty actually lay with the bridge officers instead of yourself. That's a definite possibility too.

>You state that the WSL offered these jobs as if it were an established fact, but I >remain
>singularly unconvinced on the material you've offered that this is the case.

That's the way it is then, I guess. (The same bribery story was told to Walter Lord by a surviving crewman himself, though; I don't tell you this to *convince* you of anything, Inger -- I tell you this just so you'll be aware that there's more to the bribery subject than you presently believe. )

>You haven't offered any reason why the WSL would renege on its
>promise to Fleet and yet fulfill it to Hichens, when Fleet was potentially far more >damaging.

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question, but White Star didn't keep its promise to Walter Lord's informant either. (Oddly enough, though, that chap seemed rather good natured about it.)

>Why, if he was betrayed by the Line, would he continue to remain faithful to them >by not
>disclosing such damaging evidence, even to sympathetic researchers such as Reade - >even
>long after the line itself had ceased to exist? I doubt it.

Would you admit to selling your personal integrity for personal gain if an interested stranger wondered about it? I doubt if many people would jump at such an opportunity, and I suspect that's why Fleet privately told a *friend* about his bribe but refrained from mentioning it to a passing author.

>Rather than ascribe one possible interpretation to these events, I prefer to
>keep my options open, and critically assess the motives of the participants.

...or, more accurately, to critically assess what you *think* their motives were -- which is the very same thing I did in my book. I've already explained why I gave the bribery scenario more weight than your theory that Fleet was ready to blame anyone and everyone except himself. Although you apparently disagree, I don't think Fleet would have blamed *innocent* people for something that was actually his fault, and that's why I give credence to the possibility that he saw several 'early' icebergs and that the bridge officers failed to take appropriate action based on his warnings.

>According to your version of events, they changed their stories in order to >participate in a
>coverup even though they knew that they could be contradicted at the inquiry in >front of Senator
>Smith by anyone on the Carpathia who had overheard them

Well, all I can say is that when Peuchen contradicted Fleet at the Inquiry, Senator Smith believed Fleet instead of Peuchen and let the matter drop. I suspect Fleet could easily have gotten around similar problems if he had had to explain to Senator Smith his comments to various people on the Carpathia. ("Oy, Sir, they was mistaken just like the Major; I never said that; they misunderstood my meanin', Sir; here's what I really said, Sir....")

>What - you're only interested in material that might support your theory rather >than counter it? ;-)

Not at all, but your statement that I relied on too many second-hand accounts led me to believe that you had uncovered *primary* accounts that you felt I should have used in their place. (I guess I was mistaken, eh?)

In any case, though, the second hand reports continue to accumulate, and -- until the 'big one' comes along -- I'll continue to file them away for future reference.

All my best,

George

 

[Inger Sheil]

Nursing results of too much Christmas cheer here, George, so will tackle this when the head clears Thoughtful response requires thoughtful answer, so will address the issues you raise.

Best wishes,

Inger

 

[George Behe]

Hi, Inger!

Take your time, since I've already said pretty much all I have to say on the subject. However, I'd still be interested to hear your thoughts re: the possible truth of Fleet's claim to Peuchen that the bridge didn't reply to his warning. I have a theory about this possibility that I've never expressed publicly, and my theory might also affect the question (now being discussed in another thread) of the interval that separated the berg sighting and the collision.

All my best,

George

 

[Michael F. Koch]

This may be a bit old to some of you all, but I just got my copy of George's "Speed, Safety and Sacrifice" today and really thought it was cutting edge stuff! All the evidence George provided and along with reading David Brown's book really has me believing Murdoch was dodging bergs for the hour leading up to the collision. I especially found the previous and subsequent White Star coverups interesting and a sound basis for Behe's conclusions on the Titanic coverups. The only thing I'm wondering about that wasn't addressed was, did Fleet maybe say he kept warning the bridge without response to passengers to cover up for his own guilt for not warning the bridge in time? Great book and am sorry it took me so long to get it. I would also like to see George's correspondence with Leslie Harrison regarding the Californian incident published into a book. Any chance of that George? Finally, the picture of the Titanic taken on April 12 from the Lake Manitoba: Is that real? And if so, why haven't we seen or heard about that before? I was always under the impression, the last picture of Titanic was taken at Queenstown. If it's real, it sure is a great piece of history!

Thanks,

Michael Koch

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

George told me that the photo in the book was 'doctored'. As I recall (I don't have the book in front of me), the publisher *changed* the caption to indicate the photo was real. George originally had a caption to indicate the photo was not true

 

[Michael F. Koch]

Thanks, Bill! I was pretty skeptical on that one as it was never before mentioned.

Mike.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I have the book as well. Like much of Georges work, it's very thorough and thought povoking. That quite a few sources are second hand is a bit of a problem, but the premise that the people involved said what they did is entirely credible IMO.

Mike, you asked; >>The only thing I'm wondering about that wasn't addressed was, did Fleet maybe say he kept warning the bridge without response to passengers to cover up for his own guilt for not warning the bridge in time?<<

Guilt? I don't know. The impression I have from reading Fleet's actual testimony to the U.S. Senate was that the ship started to turn away while he was still waiting for somebody to answer the phone. IOW, the bridge saw the berg first and started acting on it. Fleet's and Lee's remarks in the lifeboat, if actually said, wouldn't surprise me in the least. They were on watch when the collision occured, and they knew they would be facing some tough questions later. It sounds to me like they were laying the groundwork for the time honoured tradition known as CYA! (Cover your a**)

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart