Why didn't Lorraine Allison get in a boat?

If you mean Bill Wormstedt's revised times, he has taken pains to research as much as possible into the lowering of various lifeboats based on witness testimonies and made logical conclusions. He does not claim it to be 100% accurate - no one can - but to be as close to actual events as possible. A lot of other respected Titanic researchers have agreed on this.

If you have a bee in your bonnet about that, it is frankly your problem.
 
Last edited:
If you have a bee in your bonnet about that, it is frankly your problem.

Wrong, again. The problem lies with those who promote fiction as fact.

The first rocket was sent off after Lifeboat #5 was launched and as Lifeboat #3 was being loaded.
The first rocket was launched as Lifeboat No. 6 was being lowered to the ocean.
The first lifeboat was spotted on the water at 12:25 a.m. That was Lifeboat No. 7
Lifeboat No. 5 was the second lifeboat to be launched and left the ship about five minutes after No. 7.
Those are the facts.

Now you tell everyone where you shoehorn No. 8 in?
 
The first lifeboat was spotted on the water at 12:25 a.m. That was Lifeboat No. 7
The "fact" about boat #7 being lowered at 12:25 has been disproven a long time ago. It is now universally accepted that #7, the first lifeboat launched, was lowered at around 12:45. But perhaps you know better.

One only needs to look at George Hogg, the lookout, who was rescued on #7.

He and Evans relieved Fleet and Lee in the crow's nest at around midnight. Both Hogg and Evans agreed that they spent around 20 minutes there before coming back down and going to help with the boats. Allowing for the handover, time taken to climb up and again down the ladder etc, that alone would take you to 12:25.

Afterwards, Hogg helped to uncover a couple of lifeboats and performed other tasks before being ordred by Murdoch to see to #7's plug. Hogg did that, then helped to load #7 and then was ordered by Murdoch to go in that boat, which he did.

All that ties in nicely with the 12:45 time suggested by the "revisionists" whose opinions you seem to despise so much. As I said, perhaps you know better than most others.
 
The "fact" about boat #7 being lowered at 12:25 has been disproven a long time ago.

Wrong, for the third time. (I'm beginning to detect a pattern.) To start with, your basic facts are wrong. Nobody says #7 was being lowered at 12:25 a.m. Quartermaster George Rowe saw a lifeboat (#7) in the water and phoned the bridge at 12:25 a.m. to ask 'what gives?' Rowe's timing has never been disproven by anybody. If you think it has, then provide the evidence.


It is now universally accepted that #7, the first lifeboat launched, was lowered at around 12:45. But perhaps you know better.

I do know better. The evidence tells me so. If that fiction is "universally accepted" its because nobody has challenged it, not because its true.

One only needs to look at George Hogg, the lookout, who was rescued on #7... Both Hogg and Evans agreed that they spent around 20 minutes there before coming back down and going to help with the boats. Allowing for the handover, time taken to climb up and again down the ladder etc, that alone would take you to 12:25.

Please provide the source of your amazing breakdown of the times it took for all these actions. Unless you just made it up out of whole cloth.But that would just be wrong. Making up "evidence" is a strict no-no.


All that ties in nicely with the 12:45 time suggested by the "revisionists" whose opinions you seem to despise so much. As I said, perhaps you know better than most others.

I've said many times, that new theories are welcome---but to be considered valid they must be supported by the evidence. Revisionists who CHANGE THE EVIDENCE, then announce "look, the (invented) evidence supports our theory" have only proved how invalid their theory is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it is a complete waste of time trying to reason with some people and this is one of those situations. I am not going to bother responding to this sort of silly bear-baiting.

This is how these discussions always end. When challenged with facts and evidence, your side leaves without "responding" to either. Oh, well.
 
I have had a rethink about the entire scenario that eventually led to the deaths of Hudson, Bess and Loraine Allison. As discussed in other threads, I still believe that it was due to a combination of Bess' insistence of not leaving her husband and Hudson's own dithering, but above all (contrary to my own previous belief) because the three of them remained on the port side of the ship till the end, not realizing that men were allowed where there was room on the starboard side. This may seem unlikely with hindsight, but on a ship the size of the Titanic, people might not have realized what was going on in parts of the ship away from their own positions. Just like how very few Second Class passengers, if any, went to the forward parts of the ship during the sinking. But of one thing I remain certain; the Allisons were not searching for baby Trevor, whom they knew was safe with his nurse Alice Cleaver.

Alice Cleaver and probably Sarah Daniels informed the Hudson and Bess about the danger to the ship and soon after wards Daniels left on Lifeboat #8 launched at 01:00 am. I believe that Alice Cleaver picked-up Trevor Allison, who was her responsibility anyway, right in front of Bess and as she left, almost certainly ran into Hudson Allison as she claimed later. That would mean both parents knew where Trevor was and left the cabin themselves soon afterwards with Loraine. That would have been the only way by which Bess and Loraine managed to get into Lifeboat #6; Hudson very likely bundled the two of them into the lifeboat and stood back on the deck. But when Bess realized that her husband was not going to be allowed into the lifeboat, she got out with Loraine, as witnessed and reported by both Major Peuchen and Colonel Gracie.

I originally assumed that Bess then spent time searching for her husband and kept missing him in the crowd. But given the timeframes, I began to feel that this was unlikely; even if Bess had momentarily not seen where Hudson was when she got out of Lifeboat #6, I think she would soon have found him.

Hudson then very likely spent time trying to persuade Bess to get into a lifeboat with Loraine while the woman stood her ground in refusal to go without him. During that argument, if the family had moved aft while remaining on the port side, they could have ended-up where Lifeboats #16, #14 and #12 were being loaded but again with the "women and children only" protocol. That could have been when Winnie Troutt, who was very likely rescued on one of those 3 lifeboats, saw Bess "holding Loraine's hand and screaming".

All that could very easily have made Hudson and Bess assume that the situation was the same on the starboard side, although we now know that men were allowed there if there was room. After Lifeboat #12 was lowered at 01:30 am and Lifeboat #10 not even loading yet, the Allisons most likely went down to A-deck to the vicinity of Lifeboat #4 around which a large number of their contemporary First Class passengers were gathering. But the situation there and later around Collapsible D would have been the same with Hudson Allison not being allowed and Bess Allison refusing to get into a boat without him. After that, it was too late for any of them.
 
Last edited:
Bess Allison got herself and her daughter killed out of stubbornness. Lorraine shouldn't have died.

Bess looks very bad. She got two people, one of them an innocent toddler, killed. Some would say Bess's own death is punishment.
 
Personally, we can speculate and comment about mistakes of fellow human beings but to actually condemn them and say that "their death was punishment" is beyond our remit. Of course, we can condemn proven murderers, terrorists etc but not a parent who probably caused the death of her child due to stupidity and wrong decisions. Even if things had turned out the way that I suspect that they did, at most we can hold Bess responsible for Loraine's death but it would be difficult to go beyond that since there was no intent. A lot of people made erroneous decisions that night.
 
I apologise. I am a survivor of intense bullying in my school days - the medication i was put on for life in my teens caused a chest - which is really difficult when you are a (cisgender) school boy. It wasn't just boys who said i needed various types of sexy intimate ladies wear. Cisgender female classmates did as well. So dispiriting and disheartening. Again, I apologise. My psychologist (autocorrect fixed) said i likely have PTSD.
 
Please don't apologize; you do not need to. I was only stating an opinion and am aware that all of us can sometimes get very angry at so many unnecessary deaths, in this case an innocent child.

I am really, really sorry about your past experiences as a child. And as you are probably aware, I am a retired GP and have dealt with many cases of PTSD and similar. Not sure how old you are now, but in the past awareness about certain things were poor and even family members have been unsympathetic.

Obviously, it would be awkward to discuss such personal things in these open forums but please feel free to PM me any time you wish.
 
@Arun Vajpey The version of Loraine Allison in the 1996 TVM - where she is transformed from an innocent two year old toddler into a seven year old rude and nasty spoiled brat: that was deplorable to do.
I have not seen that version but have heard that it was terrible. I expect the 'transformation' of Loraine Allison was just one of many. I have seen a still where George C Scott, who probably looks and talks less like Captain Smith than I do, at the helm with Catherine Zeta Jones preening at his side. I felt that was enough to tell me the sort of movie it was.
 
Back
Top