Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

Re: Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

Postby Timothy Trower on Wed May 06, 2009 7:38 am

Aly,

One thing to watch is pinning blame on the Samson -- that vessel has been proven conclusively to have not been anywhere near the sinking. You might want to reread what Chris wrote about that ship, and the appropriate section of The Indifferent Stranger by Paul Lee. (My online copy eludes me at the moment!)
All the best,

Tim

THSMB Admin -- timtrower@NOSPAMtitanichistoricalsociety.net (just remove the NOSPAM before sending an email).
Timothy Trower
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:45 pm
Location: Springfield, Missouri, USA

Re: Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

Postby Aly Jones on Wed May 06, 2009 10:02 am

Ok Tim, point taken.
Peace.
Aly Jones
 

Re: Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

Postby Michael H Standart on Wed May 06, 2009 12:48 pm

>>True about the illegal whaling vessel the Samson,not owning up,that's why the Californian was accused in the first place.<<

Actually, it's not.

For one thing, the Samson was supposedly a seal hunting vessel and in 1912, there was nothing illegal about hunting seals...or even whales for that matter. All that aside, the fatal flaw in the Samson story is that the ship was known to be tied up at Isafjordhur Iceland on April 6, and again on April 20. There's just no way that this 6 knot capable ship could have made the over 1500 mile round trip from Iceland to the Titanic wreck site and back in that time span.
Michael H Standart
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

Postby Aly Jones on Thu May 07, 2009 7:27 am

Ok Mr Michael,I see now a 6 knot ship could not go that distance,I admitt I am wrong.

Peace.
Aly Jones
 

Re: Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

Postby Jim Buchanan on Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:03 pm

Inconsistancies? I would have thought there are more like-for-like bits of evidence in this story than the ones touted by Rostron, Bisset, Lightholler et al. Not one of those gallant lads had their evidence placed under so many microscopes and made money out of the affair! My personal opinion is that all the lads on Californian told the truth as they saw it. Sure I've read all the kearned and not so learned propositions and theories ad nausem but to me.. the Californian story was a very good example of casting oil on troubled waters - a smoke screen - a public suppression of the fact that the true incompetant drowned and did not have to face a jury of his peers.
Jim Buchanan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

Postby SamHalpern on Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:49 pm

A new article of mine dealing with a number of navigational inconsistencies reported in the logbook of the SS Californian for April 14, 1912, has been posted on my website. It is called "Navigational Inconsistencies of the SS Californian," and is in PDF format. It can be downloaded at: http://www.titanicology.com/Californian ... encies.pdf.

In particular, I show that Californian's reported noontime position for April 14, 1912, was slightly in error, a result of a simple entry error when her longitude was recorded. After correcting for this small error in longitude we find all calculated dead reckoning (DR) positions from 9:40 a.m. to 10:21 p.m. fall neatly into place for the reported course headings she was put on, and consistent for the speed that she was making that day. We also show that her logbook entries for that day, which were later written up, were not in agreement with several wireless messages she sent out, and offer direct evidence that the DR stopping point derived in this paper agrees with the actual position Capt. Lord sent to Capt. Gambel of the Virginian before receiving back official word about Titanic on Monday morning.
SamHalpern
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: 41° 57' 20" N, 87° 41' 16" W

Re: Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

Postby Arlene Blundell on Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:43 pm

Well this would sem to be the place for a post.

My husband, Christopher, posted this some time ago.

We both have an expanding interest in Titanic Land


I have been posting quite a bit, and have been seriously bothered by the sheer lack of replies. My husband has given up and no longer posts, but when we talk about the subject, (infrequently of late), Chris will make statements that I later post here.

It occurred tome that Karen Kamuda's rule that poster must be representative of their true identities, (no nick names) seems to have caused a little confusion. We are NOT the same person. As I have stated, Chris has thrown in the towel with this site.

I certainly don't want to be tagged as someone else. But, we are on the same computer, hence the confusion.

Sorry for not making this clear to begin with. Post away, my fellow enthusiasts! All replies will be answered.
Thanks
Arlene, (not my husband!) :roll:
Arlene Blundell
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

Postby Arlene Blundell on Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:59 pm

BTW....I went out with hubby on a twelve thousand ton ship specifically to get a look at just how far a lookout can see before the horizon swallows the object up. Californian lookouts, confirmed by our tests, could not possibly have seen an object at night time over twenty miles away and on a night with no moon. The rising stars would have contributed to this, dazzling the eyes briefly as the light photons spaghettify over the horizon. "Titanic" lookouts were up much higher, and would have clearly seen a 10,000 ton vessel at 8 - 10 miles.

We also noticed at night that it is practically very difficult to determin exactly which direction a vessel is moving in on a black night and at what the Royal Navy describe as 'Extreme range"

This is the centerpiece of our argument. The Californian Officers of the watch dug their own grave by putting too much distance on their statements.

In attempting to 'distance themselves from the disaster, (groans for that one!), they have inadvertantly shot themselves in the foot.

Both Inquiries did not believe them. The Titanic passengers have many more statements showing clearly that the ship they saw was the same one looking back at them. They were as angry as people can be when the Californian belatedly appeared many hours after the sinking, and when most if not all of the survivors were out of the water.

50+ statements from people trying to save their families and friends, as opposed to a group of precisly five people trying to save their reputations.....who would you believe? Titanic survivors have no reason to tell lies.

Californian Officers and Master had every reason to distort the facts. When looking for a culprit in a mystery novel, Agatha Christie always advised to pick the suspect with a motive.

We did.
Arlene Blundell
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Californian- A Look at the Inconsistancies

Postby Arlene Blundell on Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:57 pm

Bottom of my last post, I'm not including Titanic's crew in the statement. They also have things to hide. but to restate, many, many passengers could clearly see the Californian in the distance. Lesser crew members also chimed in. One boat, (Number 6?) rowed thw entire night in a brave attempt to reach it. If it were not visable from a lifeboat, way down in the water, then the chances are this boat would not have bothered to try.

And theres the clincher.

If survivors as low down in the water as a rowboat could CLEARLY see a medium sized vessel from the discomfort of their little craft, the Californian HAD to have been close.

Damn close! As little as 8 miles. You can't see much further than that from the water's. You must be up high to get any distance. Those in the boats could still see this ship whilst in the lifeboats.
Arlene Blundell
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:59 am

Previous

Return to Californian

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests