Titanic's Distress Rockets

[Paul Slish]

Gibson testified he returned to the bridge at 5 minutes to one (12:55 a.m.)

"7488. Then as far as the report to you went he told you of five before you came back at five minutes to one? - Yes.

7489. And after that you saw three more yourself? - Yes.

7490. How soon was that after you had come back at five minutes to one? - As soon as I went on the bridge at five minutes to one. I called her up as soon as the Second Officer told me.

7491. You called her up on the Morse? - Yes.

7492. You mean the Second Officer gave you orders to do that? - Yes.

7493. And she did not respond to you? - No.

7494. And then you saw these rockets? - Yes.

7495. Give me an idea of the time - would that take long, or was it at once? - Well, I called her up for about three minutes, and I had just got the glasses on to her when I saw her fire the rocket. That was the first one.

7496. The first of the three? - Yes.

7497. You say you had just got the glasses on to her. Did you see it through the glasses? - Yes.

7498. How did you see the second one? - With the eye.

7499. With the naked eye? - Yes, without the glasses.

7500. And the third one? - With the eye.

7501. What colour rockets were they? - White ones."

Gibson sees three rockets which are the final three. Some time after that he says it is 1:20 a.m.

7511. What happened after that? - About twenty minutes past one the Second Officer remarked to me that she was slowly steaming away towards the south-west.

7512. Had you remained on the bridge from the time that you saw these three rockets until then? - Yes.

7513. Had you been keeping her under observation? - Yes.

So Gibson testifies there is a time interval between the last rocket being observed and 1:20 a.m. when he hears Stone saying the other steamer is slowly steaming away to the southwest.

The last rocket may not have been fired at exactly 1:10 a.m. by Gibson's time scale as Captain Jim suggests, but it couldn't have been much later than that.

Gibson states there is a time interval after the last rocket until Stone speaks at 1:20 a.m.

According to Gibson's timeline I can't see how the last rocket could have been fired later than 1:15 a.m.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>Gibson sees three rockets which are the final three. Some time after that he says it is 1:20 a.m.<<

As I pointed out in my post above, 3 days after the event while still at sea, Gibson writes that Stone told him that the steamer was steaming off to the SW after the 7th rocket. He gave very specific details in that report including the relative bearings to the steamer for each event as he saw them. Furthermore, as you well know, Stone and Gibson did not always agree on the time. Gibson said he came back up to the bridge at 12:55 while Stone said it was about 1:15 when he told Gibson about seeing 5 rockets go up and that he called Lord on the speaking tube. That's a 20 minute difference between their stories. What they did agree on was that the steam disappeared about 2 a.m. (Gibson noting 2:05 on the wheelhouse clock) and that additional rockets were seen about 3:20 and Gibson went below again at 3:40.

The one thing I don't subscribe to is multiple coincidences. Mystery ship arrives on the scene about the same time T strikes iceberg and forced to stop. Rockets seen by C over the same time interval that T was firing rockets. Mystery ship disappears from sight at the time T's lights go out just minutes before T's stern goes under.

There is just too much dependence that researchers have put on subjective estimates of distances reported which were entirely based on the apparent brightness of lights seen. There were no other physical reference points to use. The horizon was completely indiscernible from all accounts given. I contend that it is impossible to know if a ship was hull down just beyond the invisible horizon or was half the distance and in front of it under those circumstances. As Capt. Lord himself put it, "it was a very deceiving night."

To make the mystery ship excuse work, two mystery ships, not one, must be conjured up to explain what people said they saw. But I believe there are several things that cannot be disputed.

1. T's rockets were seen from C.
2. T and C were both stopped from the time T arrived until she sank.
3. Two officers on C said the mystery vessel was bearing SSE by compass from C; this puts it on a line SE true given the total compass error (variation plus deviation) given by Lord.
4. T's rockets were on the same bearing as the mystery vessel.
5. T sank at 41° 43.5'N, 49° 56.7'W.
6. C had to be on line of bearing NW true of T while they were both stopped.
7. Carpathia was coming up from the SE and was firing rockets about 3:20 a.m., 40-45 minutes before she stopped to pick up the first boat.
8. Californian saw rockets about the same time Carpathia was firing rockets.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hi Sam!

Just been reading your last. On the basis of 'the last shall be firest':

Of your notes 1-8 I agree with notes 1-6
7. & 8. deal with the same subject-
Carpathia firing rockets at 0320.
Surely she fired only one rocket at that time - one of three white ones. The ones between were, as I understand it - company signals. If this is so; what were the three refereed to by Stone
and Gibson?

As for sighting lights at sea at night - you well know my opinions about that and they have not changed.
However, since we are discussing sworn statements: Stone referred to the rockets as being not as high as the mystery vessel's masts. What would make him think that? I suggest, as I have done before, that he believed this because, despite what you suggest; he did in fact have two reference points which incidentally, I believe he could see without the aid of binoculars - the red sidelight and the white masthead light.
There is also another piece of information which suggests a moving ship rather than one which was stopped and sinking.
A sinking ship's lights do not fade gradually - like a snuffed candle - they go out suddenly and with very little warning. I think most of the survivors described that phenomenon when Titanic's lights went out. If I remember correctly, only those which became submerged went out as the water reached the filaments.
As for arrival coincidences - why not? it was the busiest part of the N. Atlantic east-west route - the area where vessels converged to and from The Corner. perhaps the mystery vessel was there before T and C and was traversing the ice barrier looking for a way through? After all, the 3/O of C did say he saw a vessel with two masthead lights coming up on the starboard quarter.

Let's face it; the strangest happenings in life are invariably the culmination of coincidence.

Cheers!

Jim.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Hi Jim.

Rostron spoke of having rockets sent up at 15 minute intervals if I recall correctly. But he also said that they fired a rocket every time they saw one of the green flares which we know came from Boxhall. To me that suggests that they could have have sent up more than one in a given 15 minute period.

As far as what Stone used as a reference, I cannot say. Maybe it was his judgement. Gibson never really said how high up he thought they went, but you know what he wrote about seeing the details through glasses.

If I recall correctly it was reported that the lights of Titanic started to get dim and slightly reddish near the end. This probably was because the steam pressure was starting to drop with nobody feeding the furnaces after those below were ordered up about 1:20. Many of the engineers were seen to come up afterward. But the lights did go out quite suddenly as soon as the breakup started.

Not just arrival coincidence but also disappearance coincidence.

Cheers,

 

[Paul Slish]

I do not agree that Gibson maintained until the nearby ship disappeared that her masthead light was to the left and the faint glare on her afterdeck to the right.

"7780. Was the glare of light which you saw on the afterpart of this vessel forward or aft of the masthead light? - Abaft the masthead light.

7781. So that you would be seeing her starboard side? - No, her port side.

7782. The glare of light which you say was aft, was aft of the masthead lights? - Yes.

7783. Was that to your left or your right as you were looking at her? - To the right.

7784. Do you mean the masthead light was to the right? - No, the masthead light was to the left.

7785. Was that before you saw her apparently steaming to the south-west? - Yes.

7786. Did you see her turn round? - No."


Gibson agreed the masthead light to the left and the faint glare on the after deck to the right (port side to Californian) was BEFORE she apparently steamed away to the southwest.

Of course he didn't see the ship turn around. How could you in the blackness of the night?

But the red light being shut in is completely in accord with a ship turning to starboard and steaming away.

Also as Jim pointed out the Titanic's lights were bright almost to the end. Stone said this ship was steaming away for a long time, at least an hour before she disappeared. It may have been a little shorter than that, but it was still for a substantial period of time.

Gibson quotes Stone as saying she was slowly steaming away to the southwest as early as 1:20 a.m.

Now lets look again at Stone's and Gibson's description of the masthead light when Stone said she was steaming away to the southwest.

Stone wrote on April 18, 1912.

"The other steamer meanwhile had shut in her red sidelight and showed us her stern light and her masthead's glow was just visible. I observed the steamer to be steaming away to the SW and altering her bearing fast."

Both Stone and Gibson agreed the nearby steamer's masthead light was flickering. Stone attributed this to her burning oil lamps.

Stone used specific language to describe the masthead light as she steamed away. "Her masthead's glow was just visible." The full masthead light is to show up to two points abaft the beam. This sounds to me like the glow of an oil burning lamp spilling around the edges of a ship heading away. Stone is not describing the same brightness I believe the Titanic would have been showing at this time.

Stone's description tallies with an oil burning masthead light steaming away. I don't imagine every ship had its masthead light perfectly baffled either.

Gibson's language is similar in his April 18, 1912 report.

"Shortly after that [the seventh rocket] I observed that her sidelight had disappeared but her masthead light was just visible, and the Second Officer remarked after taking another bearing of her, that she was slowly steering away to the SW."

Gibson's description tallies with Stone's. The masthead light is just visible on the ship steaming away due to either imperfect baffling, the glow of an oil burning lamp or even an electric lamp, or both.

That doesn't square with a brightly burning electric lamp on the Titanic at that time. Rocket firing on the Titanic ceased a considerable period of time before she sank.

 

[Paul Slish]

I also don't agree that Stone admitted all the rockets were fired from the nearby steamer.

He wrote on April 18, 1912

"Shortly after I observed another [the second] distinctly over the steamer which I made out to be a white rocket though I observed no flash on the deck or any indication that it had come from that steamer, in fact, it appeared to come from a good distance beyond her."

"I reported seeing these lights in the sky in the direction of the other steamer which appeared to me to be white rockets."

Stone is not saying he definitely believed these rockets came from the nearby steamer.

In London he was being pressed very hard. Stone was only 24 years old.

Here is how Stone started. He thought the rockets had possibly come from another ship.

"7908. Where did you think they came from, if they did not come from that ship? - Possibly from a greater distance past the ship.

7909. You thought they came from some other ship? - Possibly.

7910. Have you ever said that before to anybody? - I told the Captain so.

7911. That you thought they came from another ship? - Possibly they might have come from another ship.

7912. Did you tell that to the Captain? - Yes, afterwards.

7913. When afterwards? - The next day.

7914. Have you ever said that to anyone before today, that you made that observation to the Captain? - Not that I know of.

7915. Then you tell us now for the first time in the witness-box. Has anyone ever suggested that these rockets possibly came from another ship, except you today in the witness-box? - From another ship from the one we had under observation?

7916. Yes. Has anyone ever suggested before you have suggested it today in the witness-box? - Yes, the captain and I had a talk over about it.

7917. Now when did you first say that the Captain and you had made this suggestion? Have you said it before this morning? - No, not that I know of, to anyone official.

7918. Never mind about "official" - to any one at all? - Conversations between myself and the other Officers on the ship; we talked about this ship the remainder of the passage.

7919. Did you ever say to any Officer that you and the Captain had talked about these rockets and had expressed an opinion that they might have come from some other ship? Have you ever said that to anybody till now? You have said it to me, you know? - Yes.

7920. Have you ever said it before to anybody else? - Yes. I think I have said it both to the Chief Officer and to the Third Officer in conversation.

7921. Tell me what you said to the Chief Officer? - I have remarked at different times that these rockets did not appear to go very high; they were very low lying; they were only about half the height of the steamer's masthead light and I thought rockets would go higher than that."

Stone thought they possibly had come from another ship.

He is then pressed by Counsel and only concedes one came from the nearby ship.

"7922. Well, anything else? - But that I could not understand why if the rockets came from a steamer beyond this one, when the steamer altered her bearing the rockets should also alter their bearings.

7923. That pointed to this, that the rockets did come from this steamer? - It does, although I saw no actual evidence of their being fired from the deck of the steamer except in one case.

7924. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Which is the one case? - One rocket that I saw that appeared to be much brighter than the others.

7925. Was that one of the five or one of the three? - One of the three.

7926. That, you felt confident, came from the vessel that was showing you these navigation lights? - I am sure of it.

7927. That you were sure of? - Yes.

7928. And you had further confirmation in the fact as you have told my Lord, that when the navigation lights altered their bearing, the rockets altered their bearings in a corresponding manner? - Yes.

7929. That would tell you as a sailor that it was almost certain that those rockets were being fired from that steamer which was showing you those navigation lights? - Almost certain, yes.

7930. I suppose, at any rate, now you have not any doubt but that that ship which was showing you the navigation lights was the ship which was showing you these series of rockets? - Except, as I say, that they were very low; they did not appear to go high enough to me."

Stone said one was brighter than the rest. But he did not think these rockets went high enough to be distress rockets.

I will examine that more in the next post.

 

[Paul Slish]

Stone did NOT say the rockets only went up to half mast height. He said they only went up to about half the height of the MASTHEAD LIGHT!

"7921. Tell me what you said to the Chief Officer? - I have remarked at different times that these rockets did not appear to go very high; they were very low lying; they were only about half the height of the steamer's masthead light and I thought rockets would go higher than that."

Note that he said "they were only about half the height of the steamer's masthead light"

ABOUT HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE STEAMER'S MASTHEAD LIGHT.

Stone further said:

"7930. I suppose, at any rate, now you have not any doubt but that that ship which was showing you the navigation lights was the ship which was showing you these series of rockets? - Except, as I say, that they were very low; they did not appear to go high enough to me."

THEY WERE VERY LOW; THEY DID NOT APPEAR TO GO HIGH ENOUGH TO ME

Now Sam has researched that the Titanic's masthead light was about 145 feet above the waterline. The boat deck was about 70 feet above the waterline. Even as the Titanic settled by the bow this distance between the boat deck and the masthead light of 75 feet would remain the same.

Sam has said the rockets were to go up 600 to 800 feet. Even if they only went up 600 feet the total height is 670 feet (70 + 600). In this case the masthead light would not even be as high as 1/4 the rocket height. 167.5 feet would be 1/4 the height of the rocket and the masthead light was only 145 feet above the waterline at first.

Second Officer Lightoller later wrote in his 1935 book the rockets went up a couple of hundred feet in the air.

So even if their total height was only 270 feet (200 + 70) that is still almost twice the height of the Titanic's masthead light.

This is certainly not what Stone is describing and he could see the masthead light of the nearby ship as a reference point.

Thus again, I don't think Stone and Gibson were looking at the Titanic.

Gibson was not asked the height of the 3 rockets he first saw.

But he did make an interesting statement.

"7696. Did you know when the rockets were being sent up that they were being sent up as danger signals? - No.

7697. What did you think they were sent up for? - I thought they were some private signals.

7698. Who told you they were private signals? - Nobody told me.

7699. Had you ever seen private signals of that kind? - No.

7700. And never heard of private signals of that kind? - I have heard of private rockets, private signal rockets."

Gibson is referring to private or company signals. That correlates better with low lying signals as Stone testified.

Private signals does not tally with distress rockets going 2, 3, or 4 times the height of the nearby steamer's masthead light. And yet Gibson thought they were private signals.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hi Sam!

Apart from a small correction, it would seem that Paul agrees that the masthead light and side of the mystery vessel were a fair gauge of the height of the rockets Stone was seeing. However, Like you, I think Titanic would have been close enough to see rockets from a vessel to the northward - even company rockets. I still think Stone and Gibson were seeing T's rockets across the decks of a nearby vessel.

I have had another look at your proposed NW -SE position line between Californian and Titanic.

I agree that if the relative bearings and associated heading of Calfornian as first reported were correct then your proposal works. However, there is a contradiction.

Let's use a distance of 14 miles between Californian and Titanic:

If Californian was NW of Titanic at the time Californian's red light was shut out - say some time before 0200hrs then C would have been heading about WSW at that time. It would therefore appear that Californian stopped swinging to starboard just before Titanic sank. Because Stone said that was her head at 0330 hrs.

After Titanic sank, Californian would continue to drift southward, again say at about .7 knots. until around 0330 hrs- a distance of say 2 miles- when they saw rockets on the port beam

From the evidence given by Stone, Californian was heading WSW T. when they saw the rocket(s) on the horizon bearing roughly SSE. This has been interpreted as the rocket of Carpathia.

My plotting puts Carpthia 8 miles x 145 T from the wreck site at 0330 hrs. If Californian was 14 miles NW of Titanic when she sank and was about 2 miles further to the south at 0330 when she saw C's rockets - this would put her in a DR of about 14 miles NW of the wreck site.
However, if she saw ,as was claimed, rockets SSE on her port beam then they could not have come from Carpathia because if my plotting is correct then that vessel would have been 22 miles SE of Californian at 0330hrs. Carpathia would have to have been about 13 miles due south of the wreck site and about 7 miles off course in a SW direction for her rockets to bear SSE from Californian.

It boils-down to: if Californian was heading WSW T at 0330hrs and they did see these rockets on the beam bearing SSE then Californian could never have been on a NW-SE position line unless Carpathia was as my plot suggests - on course for Captain Smith's CDQ.
In fact, if Californian was on that SSE -NNW position line from Carpathia when the latter was abeam then Californian had to be even further north that Lord's initial 2230 DR. or there was little or no current. I don't think the latter is an option.

What do you think?

Cheers,

Jim.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Paul, you wrote:

>>But the red light being shut in is completely in accord with a ship turning to starboard and steaming away. <<

The red light being shut in is completely in accord with a ship sinking by the bow especially when coupled with what was described as as her lights looking queer but keeping the same relative position with respect to each other prior to said red light disappearing.

>>"Shortly after that [the seventh rocket] I observed that her sidelight had disappeared but her masthead light was just visible,"<<

Entirely consistent with a ship sinking by the head and listing over about 10 degrees as well as seen from a distance. Gibson never verified Stone's assumption that the steamer had turned and was steaming away. He only repeated what was told to him and accepted it. The question about seeing the ship turn around must be viewed in the overall context.

7629. Did you look at her through the glasses after her sidelight had disappeared? - Yes.
7630. Did you ever see anything which you took for her stern light? - No.

A direct conflict with Stone's account which said the steamer showed a stern light as she was steaming away.

>>Rocket firing on the Titanic ceased a considerable period of time before she sank. <<

Considerable? Let's quantify that.
BOXHALL: "I was sending the rockets up right to the very last minute when I was sent away in the boat...I have approximated it nearly half an hour [before the vessel sank], as near as I could tell. "

>>Gibson is referring to private or company signals. That correlates better with low lying signals as Stone testified. Private signals does not tally with distress rockets going 2, 3, or 4 times the height of the nearby steamer's masthead light. And yet Gibson thought they were private signals.<<

Paul, I can't believe you are suggesting company signals is what they were looking at? What company used white rockets that burst into stars as company signals?

7763. Do you know that a distress signal, the regulation distress signal, is a rocket throwing stars? - [Gibson] Yes.
7764. You knew that? - Yes.
7765. (The Commissioner.) And you knew it then, did you? - Yes.
7766. (Mr. Laing.) And each of those rockets which you saw, which you have described as white rockets, were they throwing stars? - All throwing stars.

And let's not forget,
7751. Did Mr. Stone say this vessel seemed to be in distress? - No; he said there must be something the matter with her.
7752. Did he make any remarks to you as to the Captain taking no action? Did he say anything to you at the time? - No.
7753. Are you sure? - Yes.
7754. (The Commissioner.) Did you say anything to yourself about it? - I only thought the same that he thought.
7755. What was that? - That a ship is not going to fire rockets at sea for nothing, and there must be something the matter with her.
7756. Then you thought it was a case of some kind of distress? - Yes.

Would you like to put that down to a young man being pressured into say something that was not true? I think this is case of a young man finally telling the truth of what was really going on in his mind at the time. If he thought those rockets came from beyond the steamer he was watching I believe he would have said so. I just don't trust much of what Stone said about the height of the rockets seen relative to the mast light. He seemed to downplay everything. Even the rockets seen at 3:20 he described as merely "two faint lights in the sky about S.S.W. and a little distance apart." (See 8011-8013) Gibson described them as rockets.

7596. Could you see when you saw this flash at all how far away you thought it was? - It was right on the horizon.
7597. What sort of a light was it? You called it a rocket? Was it a flash; did you see it go up into the sky? - Yes.
7598. What colour was it? - White.
7599. And you called Mr. Stone’s attention to it, did you, and then there were two more seen? - Yes.


Jim, I'll respond to last post at a later time. Got some other priorities to attend to right now.

 

[Paul Slish]

Greetings Sam. Perhaps I didn't communicate clearly. I AM NOT suggesting what Stone and Gibson saw were private or company signals.

With what we know now, I believe they were seeing the Titanic's distress rockets barely clearing the deck of a nearby steamer about five miles off.

Stone said they only went up about half the height of the masthead light of the nearby ship.

I think that is part of the reason he did not immediately grasp they were distress signals.

I was simply quoting Gibson, when Gibson said he thought they were private signals. Those are Gibson's words not mine.

My point was why would Gibson think they were private (company) signals and not distress signals?

A lack of height would be a reasonable explanation for Gibson's conclusion they were not distress rockets at that time.

Had these rockets gone up 2, 3, or 4 times the height of the masthead light Stone and Gibson could see, I believe they would have recognized them as distress rockets and taken more forceful action.

I am going to post an analysis of some of Gibson's written report and his testimony in London. It may be a few days until I get to it. My conclusion is that at times Gibson was overly imaginative. I will give my reasons for it in the post.

I find Stone a very straightforward witness. There is no exaggeration with him. First I read what Stone said to Chief Officer George Stewart at 4:00 a.m. on April 15th, 1912 (before either knew of the Titanic striking an ice berg and sinking). Stewart relates this in his evidence in London.

Then I read what Stone testified in London and I find a remarkable consistency with what he said to Stewart at 4:00 a.m.

I find Stone straightforward. I think he made a mistake in concluding the nearby steamer began to steam away after the second rocket. But he was certainly consistent in what he said about it to Stewart at 4:00 a.m. on April 15th, and what he said in London a month later.

As far as the height of the rockets, I definitely believe Stone. He had a distinct reference mark in the masthead light of the nearby steamer. A child could tell if a rocket went lower or higher than a stationary light in the same direction.

 

[Paul Slish]

Now I would like to briefly discuss an issue that Sam went over in one of his published articles.

That is how far away Lord or Groves could have first seen the Titanic. I'm just going to deal with Lord.

First a little physics. The earth is actually an oblate spheroid. Bur for distances up to 100 miles it can be treated as a sphere without substantially changing measurements of distance over her curved surface.

The distance an object can be seen depends upon its height above the surface of the earth. For example when I worked on the Fremont National Forest in southern Oregon at an elevation of 6000 feet, I could see Mount Shasta in northern California which was more than 50 miles away. Mount Shasta is 14,162 feet high.

The formula to calculate nautical miles you can see is 1.07 times the square root of the height in feet of the object (1.07 * (Height ** (-2))). This does not take into account refraction.

To estimate for refraction the formula is given anywhere from 1.13 times the square root of the height of the object to 1.17 times the square root of the height of the object.

But that is if you are flat on the surface of the earth. If your eyes are above the surface of the earth you can use the same formula to calculate how far the horizon is from you. Then add the distance from that point on the horizon to the distance the object you are looking at can be seen based upon its height.

Lets use the example of Captain Lord and the Titanic's masthead light. We will use the maximum distance formula to account for refraction (1.17 * (H ** (-2)))

Sam writes the Titanic masthead light was 145 feet above the waterline. Captain Lord was standing on the saloon deck of the Californian talking to the Chief Engineer. If the flying bridge is 40 feet above the waterline, I'm going to assume the saloon deck is no more than 30 feet above the waterline. So lets say Lord's eyes are 35 feet above the waterline.

So distance from horizon to Titanic's masthead light is 14.09 miles. Distance from Captain Lord's eyes to horizon is 6.92 miles. So the farthest Lord could see the Titanic's masthead light is 21.01 miles or 21 miles.

Now scientific precision of number tells us we can't be more accurate than the least precise factor. If one number of 4 decimal points is added to one of two decimal points, then you can't be more precise than two decimal points. When multiplying numbers you can't be more precise than the number with the least number of decimal points.

Now Lord says he see the light of a ship while talking to the engineer and at some point goes to the wireless operator, Evans. Evans tells Captain Lord the only ship he is picking up is the Titanic. Lord says that ship I see is not the Titanic. It does not have the blaze of light of a major passenger ship. He tells Evans to send a message to Titanic warning her about the ice.

This message is time stamped at 9:05 p.m. New York time by Evans. To be as conservative as possible I will only take one minute for Lord to walk to and talk to Evans. And again to be conservative I will assume Evans time stamped when he began to send the message not after sending it. So Lord is describing this ship at 9:04 p.m. New York time at the very latest.

Now Californian based upon her noon longitude of 47 25 W is running her clock 1 hour 50 minutes ahead of New York time. So Lord is describing the ship at 10:54 p.m. ship's time at the latest.

Lord says the ship stops about 11:30 p.m. So there is a minimum of 36 minutes of steaming between talking to the wireless operator and seeing the ship stop.

Now lets see if this could be the Titanic.

To be continued.

 

[Jim Currie]

It should be remembered that unlike his officers, Lord had seen a vessel similar to Titanic before - the Olympic. So he did have an idea for comparison. Also remember; he remarked about not making a mistake with these fellows or something like that.

.

Additionally; when an experienced seaman refers to a vessel approaching from the eastward when his own vessel is heading in a NE direction he doesn't mean the SE or NE - he means as near as he can determine with reference to his ship's bow - about 4 points on the bow in this case. If I am correct then Lord's mystery vessel would have been heading almost directly toward him when he first saw it. Incidentally: how far-off was this vessel if everyone saw it's sidelight with the naked eye?

If this was indeed a ship similar to Californian it would seem it's average speed was around 14 knots

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>Greetings Sam. Perhaps I didn't communicate clearly. I AM NOT suggesting what Stone and Gibson saw were private or company signals... My point was why would Gibson think they were private (company) signals and not distress signals? <<

Then I misunderstood what you were trying to say Paul. Thanks for clarifying it.

>> A lack of height would be a reasonable explanation for Gibson's conclusion they were not distress rockets at that time. <<

I think a better reason why Gibson would mention company signals is that Stone told him about his conversation with Lord on the speaking tube where Lord was asking about company signals and colors in them. At that point in Gibson's testimony do you think he would admit that he thought he was watching distress rockets? I don't think so. He finally admitted what he really thought, in my opinion, when they started to press him on the subject (7751-7756) as I related above.

>>I find Stone a very straightforward witness. <<

I find Gibson to be very straightforward. He had no reason not too. Stone on the other hand was the responsible officer. And actions taken or not taken based on what he saw is something that he had to defend. I'm not saying he lied, but if he did, he had reason to. He may not have known anything about Titanic, but he saw distress signals in what appeared to be a confusing situation, and he did nothing about it. His stated excuse was, if the Capt. Lord wasn't too concerned having reported to him on the speaking tube, why should I be?

Stone said and wrote that he told Lord about 5 rockets, yet Gibson wrote that Stone told him that he called down to Lord after the 2nd rocket, not being sure about the first one. Lord testified that he was told only about one white rocket. So who is being straightforward here?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Paul. Thanks for the unnecessary lecture on how to calculate maximum geographic range between two objects. The formula is well known and is available in on-line calculators to anyone who wants to use it. Most people I believe are not interested in the details of how it was derived. I also found your emphases about mathematical precision to be interesting, considering much of what is quoted and relied upon especially from Capt. Lord about distance, time, or bearings, were very rough estimates at best. (Example, the stranger stopping at 11.30 p.m., moving Californian again at 6.00 am, coming out of the ice at 6.30, passing Mount Temple at 7.30, reaching Carpathia at 8.30. All nice neat times given to the nearest half-hour.)

Jim, when an experienced seaman refers to a vessel approaching from "the eastward" he is not being very specific. When an experienced seaman refers to a vessel approaching from say east-southeast, that is being somewhat more specific and to the nearest 2 points on the compass. The direction that their ship's head is pointing toward is irrelevant when bearings are given in any of those terms. I've spoken to enough experienced people to understand when they are referring to a general compass direction as opposed to a more specific direction, and that can usually be surmised from the overall context of what they are saying. In the case of the approaching steamer, Lord said: "It was approaching me from the eastward... I did not get the bearings of it; I was just noticing it casually from the deck... It was on the starboard side... I just saw a white light to commence with."

I can easily prove that if it were Titanic's masthead light that came over the horizon, and was visible for about 35 minutes to Lord before stopping SE true from Californian, then the point on the horizon where it first would have come up would be close to ESE true from Californian. This fits in with what Lord described of his first sighting.

So where do you two gentlemen want to take this thread? I keep going back to basics here. Titanic's rockets were seen from Californian. Those with responsibility did nothing but watch. Everything else is just trying to find excuses for that.

For me it is an academic interest to know if it were possible that the ship that came on the scene was really the Titanic at a distance of a little more than twice what it appeared to be, or some mystery ship that decided to stop for the night between the two on account of ice, only to steam off an hour or two later across that very same ice field and disappear from sight at the exact time Titanic's lights would have gone out. My analysis, which I wrote up in a 4 part article for the THS Commutator, suggests that it was not some mystery ship. Three independent analytical methods were used to do this, as well as a check of distance based on the disappearance of the red sidelight taking into account the angle of trim and heal of Titanic at the approximate time that this would have taken place. The issue then becomes one of determining how can these two ship arrived at their respective locations after they were both stopped given what we known about the courses they were on. And that too was addressed in the article. The point is one must look at the comprehensive picture, not at isolated events.

 

[Jim Currie]

Sam, All I can say at this point is: Thanks for the unnecessary reminder of what an experienced seaman thinks!. I'll talk to you later on this.

Cheers!

Jim.