The Last Log of the Titanic

I've just read this article and am about to go back and re-read it more carefully. What a fascinating piece of work - I was entranced from the very beginning!

As a confirmed landlubber, I have no credentials with which to comment on the research or deductions made. They certainly appear to my uneducated eye to be logical and well-argued. As I read this work, I found I was constantly saying to myself: "Of course! Why didn't I think of that? Or why, at least, didn't I ask that question!?"

To my mind, and just as important, the prose was well-written, evocative and easy to follow. All jargon used was well explained, and yet at no time did I feel as if I was being patronised. It was indeed a pleasure to read; unlike so many other books (on all subjects) that I have struggled through in the past.

Mr Brown (and Phil H.) - thank you for posting this research on ET. I note that the article appears to be an excerpt from a larger work (a book?). If so, guess what I'm buying for myself at Christmas!

Regards,

Paul.

Reply Like

I must say I read Brown's research with, "intense interest ". I am far from being technical and I thought it was fascinating. He presented everything in the most logical manner. ( unlike Pellegrino )
He made two points that caught my eye. He refered to tipping, not listing. Most books say listing, but Lowe was quick to point out once that there was a difference and said the Titanic was tipping, not listing. I was glad Brown noticed that.

The other was about the iceberg not contacting the side of the ship. But it actually spilled loose ice onto the deck.
There are several credible eyewitnesses, including James McGough who had ice come through his cabin porthole. And since his porthole was on E-deck, the ship must have had some sort of contact above the line.
But all in all this book is definitely on my want list.

Reply Like

Paul and Michael:
You hit it right on the head. I haven't finished reading it yet, but was hooked immediately on page 2 by the following:

"In reality, those calm conditions were the indicators of mortal danger threatening the ship. Ice navigation texts state flatly that the absence of swell (wave motion) is an indicator that a ship is approaching pack ice. Also, an oily look to the surface of frigid water is produced by the formation of spicules, or frazil ice. Frazil is the first stage in the development of new sea ice. Its formation would have been expected once the temperature of the seawater dipped below the freezing point. (Seawater freezes at a lower temperature than does freshwater.)"

And George Behe will love this followup paragraph:

"Based on the conditions reported by Lightoller and the other surviving officers, Titanic must have been steaming through patches of ice and dodging occasional bergs for several hours at the time of the accident. There was plenty of time to set extra lookouts, slow down, and alter course more to the south........"

Reply Like

All,

I have to hand it to Mr. Brown. So much of what he says makes a lot of real sense and like Paul Rogers I kept thinking "My God, that's it! That's what happened."

I am no mariner either but I feel even those who are will be at odds to take serious issue with Brown's reasoning which is certainly sound.

I was transfixed all the way through the article and want to commend him for putting the piece so expertly together. It's extremely complicated and so in lesser hands (like mine!) might have become hopelessly confused.

All my compliments to David Brown (and Philip Hind, of course) for sharing with all of us what must be one of the most in-depth and intriguing papers ever posted on ET.

Randy

Reply Like

Mike Herbold wrote:

>And George Behe will love this followup >paragraph:

"Based on the conditions reported by Lightoller >and the other surviving
>officers, Titanic must have been steaming through >patches of ice and
>dodging occasional bergs for several hours at the >time of the accident.

Hi, Mike!

A simple glance at the Senate Inquiry's ice charts prove that this was indeed the case. (Who knows? Titanic's lookouts might even have *seen* a few of these bergs....) :-)

>There was plenty of time to set extra lookouts, >slow down, and alter
>course more to the south........"

Mr. Brown had better be careful and not criticize Murdoch, though, or Murdoch's small but vocal group of advocates will pounce on him like a hobo on a ham sandwich. :-)

All my best,

George

Reply Like

By the way, I'd like to compliment David Brown on his fine article. It's definitely worthy of careful reading and serious consideration.

Nice work, David!

All my best,

George

Reply Like

George et al:
Actually I was commenting on David Brown's new book by the same name. I didn't notice the new article here on ET until just now. You're probably aware of it already, George, but he also talks about your "several iceberg warnings" on page 49 and 58-59.

Reply Like

The iceberg warnings in and of themselves are rather old news. The Titanic received them, Smith saw some of them and even ordered a course change further south to avoid them...yet still kept up speed.(BAD career move!)

I still tend to question whether or not the lookouts saw any bergs befor the collision with the berg they unquestionably did see. It's not impossible. Nighttime at sea is about as black as inky black can be. It's possible they saw some sliding past, and survivor accounts allude to the possibility of three icebergs seen and avoided. Titanic, Speed Safety, And Sacrifice goes into this in some detail and is worth getting so one knows the arguements and the source of the accounts. It's worth noting that on their run north to pick up the survivors, the Carpathia's crew saw and avoided several icebergs...at night!

I suppose I'll have to order Mr. Browns book to see for myself what his arguements are. It's already available on Amazon.com.

In the latest Voyager put out by TI, there is an artical and some photographs of yet another claiment for THE iceberg that sank the Titanic. I'm decidedly skeptical on this one, but I was wondering if anyone else here saw it, and what they thought of it.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

Reply Like

Very interesting work - both the article and, from the sounds of it, the book. This looks like one of the few new titles that are worth picking up, as it represents a reappraisal of the information rather than a re-hash :-) One good thing about the market reaching saturation point - it's getting harder to publish, so those titles that do make it into print have (one hopes) been through a stringent process...a sort of natural selection (publishing Darwinism!). I'll certainly be reading the book, based on the article and the recommendations of people like Parks Stephenson and Mike Herbold. Of course, I'll be reading the more technical aspects of ship handling and structure very s-l-o-w-l-y, and perhaps some of it will sink in ;-) Good thing my mates in the mercantile marine and Navy (both US and Brit) are generally willing to help a wide-eyed novice out.

The helm orders and dynamics of the collision in particular are still a subject of fascinating debate - one to which I wish I had something more to contribute. Like discussions involving many of the more technical aspects, I'm happy to listen to others, such as Brown, Stephenson, Mengot and McVey expound upon theories and possibilities. While I can't say I agree with everything in the article, I doubt there's a substantial work on the Titanic in existance dealing the more contentious issues that I could agree with in its entirely :-)

One criticism of the senior officers that I do feel has a good deal of validity, even within the context of contemporary merchant shipping practices (and malpractices!), is the decision not to place more lookouts (particularly in the 'eyes' of the ship). After all, some other basic, if inadequate precautions had been taken (a warning to the crows nest to keep a sharp lookout for ice, the order to minimise light in front of the bridge) - why not post more lookouts?

At any rate, I think it's a productive activity to critically assess the actions of officers, crew and passengers. The canon must always be open to challenge.

And a big hallo to George!

Mr. Brown had better be careful and not criticize Murdoch, though, or Murdoch's small but vocal group of advocates will pounce on him like a hobo on a ham sandwich. :-)

Good thing this group of aggressive 'advocates' is small then, eh? I've only met a few along these lines, most of whom were quite young, or new to the field. Like their opposing counterparts (those who have reduced Murdoch to a caricature of incompetance or even malignancy), they represent the extremes in Titanic research. The polarity is part of the downside of popular history, and Murdoch - as a high profile participant in the event - is particularly susceptible to this.

Fortunately, most Murdoch researchers I've met or corresponded with are sharply perceptive, shrewd, talented investigators who possess a wonderful grasp of the First Officer's humanity - strengths, flaws and all. They're not a small group, either, and they're not all vocal - there are surprisingly many of them, and they live all over the world. I had dinner with one woman last week - not an active participant in the on-line community - who has been researching Murdoch for years. She has quietly and unobtrusively been gathering data, interviewing people, searching through public records, and has amassed a substantial body of work.

There are many such individuals in the Titanic community, and one of the joys is meeting them. I've spent some of the most enjoyable and fruitful hours in the course of my own research in sitting down in pubs or warm kitchens, a pint or a cup of tea in front of me, documents and photos spread out (being careful not to spill beverages on them), comparing data and theories. Rather than edging to the extremes that characterise popular history, it is in these conversations and debates that a full and frank discussion occurs on strengths, foibles, errors of judgement and the admirable qualities of the participants get a thorough investigation.

If you do manage to get to the UK again at some point in the future, perhaps you'd care to meet some of these individuals? I'd be happy to see if I could arrange it. Their ideas, research and material are often fresh and original, and - by and large - their critical faculties are honed to a remarkable degree. Not a foaming mouth in sight - just passionate, dedicated and brilliant people :-) It's been a privilege to learn from them.

All the best,

Inger

Reply Like

Hi, Inger!

>Fortunately, most Murdoch researchers I've met or >corresponded with are
>sharply perceptive, shrewd, talented >investigators who possess a
>wonderful grasp of the First Officer's humanity - >strengths, flaws and all.

The sad thing, though, is that we never seem to hear about these 'flaws.' In fact, you once told me privately that you know a number of researchers and family members who are aware of some of Murdoch's flaws but refuse to make that information part of the historical record. The result of this behavior is that the public has an unnaturally skewed perception of "the Noble Murdoch" as being unlike "the normal flawed human being who makes mistakes like everyone else." That's one reason why I refuse to buy into the "the Noble Murdoch" scenario without being able to see 'the other side of the coin.'

>Rather than edging to the extremes that >characterise
>popular history, it is in these conversations and >debates that a full
>and frank discussion occurs on strengths, >foibles, errors of judgement
>and the admirable qualities of the participants >get a thorough
>investigation.

However, none of this information does historians any good if it isn't made public in one fashion or another.

>If you do manage to get to the UK again at some >point in the future,
>perhaps you'd care to meet some of these >individuals?

Thanks for the invitation. If Geoff Whitfield can arrange a general amnesty for me, I'll be there with bells on. :-)

All my best,

George

Reply Like

I’ll attempt to be brief. David’s article is very well argued in relation to the impact. I fully subscribe to keel damage and his masterful analysis of the flooding makes sense.
I also agree that there was an attempt to hard-a-starboard in order to port around the berg after the initial left turn. Olliver and Rowe are convincing in evidence on this point — on top of the Murdoch hearsay.
I also agree that Titanic then went ahead again for some time. And I think (I think, merely) that she had previously first reversed post-accident to get off any detached spur beneath her. That opinion is open to anyone who reads the evidence.
However I part company with David on three points, and I think he parts company himself form his previous rigorous analysis and avowed attempt to avoid all myths — whether existing or fresh minted.
I don’t agree that: 1) Titanic went to the North; 2) That she had made a decision to head for Halifax; nor with 3) The simple assumption that the Titanic’s mystery ship was the Californian.
Did the Titanic go to the North?
A person walking in a straight line, turning left and then half-completing a turn to the right (“I tried to port around her, but she was too close” — incompletion of that turn indicates Murdoch) will not end up facing to the north. Broadly speaking, one is more likely to face in the same direction as previously in relation to a sharp left, incomplete right S-bend turn. Try it yourself.
It must be far more likely that the Titanic attempted, when moving forward, to resume her westerly course.
Did she aim for Halifax?
Halifax is NOT to the North. Greenland is to the North. Halifax is north of West. On a rhumb Grand Circle course, even if one wanted to go to Halifax, the proper action is to continue on the westerly heading first. Only later will one want to plot a gradually steeper Northern course blended into a western heading.
Titanic moving forward post-impact surely therefore is most likely to mean a westerly heading.
A decision to steer North would require the plotting of an entirely new course. Even if one wanted to steer NorthWest, as an arrow flies, for Halifax (in contravention of Grand Circle rhumb-line navigational convention) this too would require an entirely new course.
It is inconceivable that helmsman Hitchens would not be told about it or would not notice such a decision. Olliver was there too. Neither of them mention it. Nor is it conceivable that the officers on board the bridge would not learn of such a plan.
Fourth Officer Boxhall was on that bridge after impact and for much thereafter. He had responsibility for computing the Titanic’s final at-rest position. His first impression was transmitted at 12.15.
David overlooks the fact that Boxhall computed a new position at 12.25, long after the Titanic was immobile, long after all the movement he refers to was completed and at and end.
It is beyond my acceptance that up to ten minutes of forward movement on a new heading — to the north! — would have been A) missed by him or B) not included in the new calculation. The overall effect of including the fresh data may have been of minor significance in relation to the overall dead reckoning, but that is no argument for its willful omission.
The proof is there in Boxhall’s new computation at 12.25. The Titanic remains on her Westerly line. But her latitude has actually come down. It is further to the SOUTH. That alleged chug to the North didn’t happen. The evidence on these arguments is bad, bad, bad. In fact it really doesn’t exist. It is wishful thinking. We have west and more west.
Was the Titanic’s mystery ship the Californian?
I’m not getting into this again, except to point out that David has simply decided that they are one and the same. The Californian was unquestionably to the north of the Titanic. But an unexplained, motiveless change of course to the north when the Californian had not been in sight either before or immediately after impact is, in my view, wholly untenable.
Halifax ain’t North. There ain’t nothing North. Why go North?

Reply Like