Truth or PR for a new book?

[Fifer]

I am sure this is not new but what do we think?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/8016752/Titanic-sunk-by-steering-blunder-new-book-claims.html

[Norfolk Brit]

I am sure this is not new but what do we think?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/8016752/Titanic-sunk-by-steering-blunder-new-book-claims.html

 

Oh goodie - I love these debates; don't join in due to ignorance, but greatly look forward to the input of the more knowledgeable.

 

Mary

[oldsilverfox]

Could it have been caused by those P&O / Princess officers that we keep reading about, perchance ?????

[Colin_Cameron]

I am sure this is not new ...

 

It's certainly not new. I first heard it at the time the James Cameron film came out, (more than?) ten years ago.

 

Some people claimed it was a continuity error in the film, others said it was deliberate but seems wrong to us because of the different, tiller and rudder commands.

 

To add to the confusion I think the Telegraph has this

So a command to turn "hard a starboard" meant turn the wheel right under the Tiller system and left under the Rudder.

the wrong way round. (I'm quite happy to be corrected by those who know better.)

 

Regards, Colin.

[Cruise Liner Fan]

In the comments section one man who refers to himself as antipodies commented that "This story certainly isn't new.I served as an engineer officer in the British Mercantile Marine in the 1960s and the above was a well known and discussed fact.Moral-don't listen to landlubbers,particularly female ones".I must admit that last sentence was kind of funny :D I think that this book is just rehashing old news and that the book's author who happens to be the granddaughter of Titanic's 2nd Officer Charles Lightoller,well she is just trying to sell a book with old news. Regards,Jerry

[William Dean]

In the comments section one man who refers to himself as antipodies commented that "This story certainly isn't new.I served as an engineer officer in the British Mercantile Marine in the 1960s and the above was a well known and discussed fact.Moral-don't listen to landlubbers,particularly female ones".I must admit that last sentence was kind of funny :D I think that this book is just rehashing old news and that the book's author who happens to be the granddaughter of Titanic's 2nd Officer Charles Lightoller,well she is just trying to sell a book with old news. Regards,Jerry

 

Pray tell.

 

Why is the misogynistic comment funny?

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Pray tell.

 

Why is the misogynistic comment funny?

Well don't you at least have a sense of humor? :D And I DO NOT have a hatred for women. Regards,Jerry

[William Dean]

Well don't you at least have a sense of humor? :D And I DO NOT have a hatred for women. Regards,Jerry

 

I do have a sense of humour, and I can even spell it. Which is why I found your remark incongruous.

 

You had to google misogynistic, I see.

[Cruise Liner Fan]

I do have a sense of humour, and I can even spell it. Which is why I found your remark incongruous.

 

You had to google misogynistic, I see.

No I used Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary for the definition of the word misogynistic.The same dictionary states that humor or humour can be spelled either way and H-U-M-O-U-R is the British version of H-U-M-O-R.Don't you have anything else better to do than to prosecute me for the crime of having a sense of humor or humour?

[William Dean]

No I used Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary for the definition of the word misogynistic.The same dictionary states that humor or humour can be spelled either way and H-U-M-O-U-R is the British version of H-U-M-O-R.Don't you have anything else better to do than to prosecute me for the crime of having a sense of humor or humour?

 

Ah. No wonder you can't spell if you use Websters. Try Oxford.

 

And I'm persecuting you, not prosecuting you.

 

Alternatively I'm being humorous at your expense. Depends on whether you have a sense of humour, I suppose.

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Ah. No wonder you can't spell if you use Websters. Try Oxford.

 

And I'm persecuting you, not prosecuting you.

 

Alternatively I'm being humorous at your expense. Depends on whether you have a sense of humour, I suppose.

I have never heard of persecuting a person for a crime.If you had carefully read my quote I wrote "prosecute me for the crime of having a sense of humor (humour).And it is very clear that you sorely lack a sense of humor (humour) Look I remember viewing some old animated cartoons that made fun of women drivers.Do I really believe that women drivers are confused idiots? NO.It was just a joke in a animated cartoon.

[GAV BOY]

I have never heard of persecuting a person for a crime.If you had carefully read my quote I wrote "prosecute me for the crime of having a sense of humor (humour).And it is very clear that you sorely lack a sense of humor (humour) Look I remember viewing some old animated cartoons that made fun of women drivers.Do I really believe that women drivers are confused idiots? NO.It was just a joke in a animated cartoon.

 

I like your sense of humor. :D ;)

[NomDePlume]

Jerry--I found nothing remotely funny in your original remark either--quite the contrary.

[Cruise Socrates]

I think if this account was actual we would have heard about much earlier then this. There have loads of conspiracies suronding the Titanic and how she had sunk but none of these have ever been proven to be truth, which I doubt they are.

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Jerry--I found nothing remotely funny in your original remark either--quite the contrary.

I am just quoting what someone else wrote which was don't believe the landlubbers particularly the female ones.And I just laughed at that quote.It does not mean that I believe in that quote.

[Cruise Liner Fan]

I think if this account was actual we would have heard about much earlier then this. There have loads of conspiracies suronding the Titanic and how she had sunk but none of these have ever been proven to be truth, which I doubt they are.

Thank God.Oh wait is it still ok to mention God :eek: But anyway Thank God there is someone who is not going off topic. Regards,Jerry

[Host Sharon]

My personal view - PR for a new book. Passenger steamships had been going since the 1840s, as indeed had White Star Line. Surely a senior officer would have noticed that the helmsman was steering the opposite way to that ordered, by the time they met the iceberg ??

[Cruise Liner Fan]

My personal view - PR for a new book. Passenger steamships had been going since the 1840s, as indeed had White Star Line. Surely a senior officer would have noticed that the helmsman was steering the opposite way to that ordered, by the time they met the iceberg ??

But today's passenger ships including QM2,QV and the new QE are really passenger diesel-electric motorships not passenger steamships,the QM2 also has 2 gas turbines connected to 2 electric generators.And remember in 1986-1987 the QE2 was converted from a passenger steamship to a passenger diesel-electric motorship. Regards,Jerry

[guernseyguy]

I am sure this is not new but what do we think?

 

The resumption of steaming was addressed in 'The Last Log of the Titanic' and seemed reasonably well sourced. What was not was the conjecture on the impact this did or did not have on the subsequent foundering.

 

What surprises me is why no one focusses on the real scandal of the sinking - why there were so many empty spaces in the lifeboats - if they had put their minds to it they could have saved hundreds more.

[BritNavyGal]

My personal view - PR for a new book. Passenger steamships had been going since the 1840s, as indeed had White Star Line. Surely a senior officer would have noticed that the helmsman was steering the opposite way to that ordered, by the time they met the iceberg ??

 

Shipscat, that is exactly what we thought when we read the article yesterday!

[Richard Schmidt]

I am sure this is not new but what do we think?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/8016752/Titanic-sunk-by-steering-blunder-new-book-claims.html

 

I seem to recall that one of the engine telegraphs was found in the "slow ahead" position by Ballard on one of the dives to the wreck. Anyone recall the same? If so it might give some credence to at least part of the account.

[Richard Schmidt]

I am sure this is not new but what do we think?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/8016752/Titanic-sunk-by-steering-blunder-new-book-claims.html

 

From Walter Lord's "The Night Lives On"

 

"The first few moments after the collision are among the most difficult to sort out. A series of rapidly changing orders jangled from the bridge to the engine room, but none of the surviving witnesses agreed on the exact sequence, the timing, or even the purpose. Greaser Fred Scott testified that immediately after the collision, the engine room telegraph bells rang STOP ENGINES...then, 10 or 15 minutes later, SLOW AHEAD...another 10 minutes and again, STOP ENGINES...another 10 minutes and SLOW ASTERN...5 more minutes and once again, STOP ENGINES. This time they stopped for good.

 

"Trimmer Patrick Dillon, the only other survivor from the engine room, thought that the signal STOP ENGINES came immediately before the crash, that SLOW ASTERN came before SLOW AHEAD, and that the time intervals were much shorter--for instance, the ship went SLOW AHEAD for only two minutes, not ten. Neither man remembered the engines being set at FULL SPEED ASTERN, as recalled so clearly by Fourth Officer Boxhall on the bridge.

 

"It is fruitless to turn to the bridge for clarification. Captain Smith, First Officer Murdoch, and Sixth Officer Moody were all lost; Fourth Officer Boxhall was off making a quick inspection; Quartermaster Hichens was in the wheelhouse unable to see anything; Quartermaster Olliver was running errands most of the time. Olliver does remember the Captain telegraphing HALF SPEED AHEAD sometime during the interval when the Titanic lay almost dead in the water."

[Pennypocket]

And this is important why? The ship sank, loads of people died and the statue of limitations is way past not to mention everyone is now passed on so no law suits nothing but someone marketing a new book. Will the next one be about how the Germans in anticipation of WWI pushed the ice berg in front of the ship to cause the crash and the loss of life. At least we know George Bush is not responsible for this one.

[stowaway2k]

And this is important why? The ship sank, loads of people died and the statue of limitations is way past not to mention everyone is now passed on so no law suits nothing but someone marketing a new book. Will the next one be about how the Germans in anticipation of WWI pushed the ice berg in front of the ship to cause the crash and the loss of life. At least we know George Bush is not responsible for this one.

 

It is important in the way all history is important.

Because it may not have immediate influence over every-day contemporary society does not mean that it is not worthy of discussion. At the very least, many people find it an interesting subject.

Why do people talk about the pyramids or Stonehenge, or study battles and wars fought centuries ago?

It is important because people choose to make it so, by continuing to study it, discuss it, debate it, and be fascinated by it.

That is why anything "new" about it continues to make headlines.

 

To those who have no interest in it, it's not important. Fair enough. :)

 

Didn't George W's great-grandpappy have business dealings with J.P. Morgan, who owned International Mercantile Marine, which owned the White Star Line, which owned Titanic???? :eek:;)

[Salacia]

Kind of off thread, but I happened to be walking through Grand Central Terminal in NYC on Wed 23 Sept as a Titanic Exhibit was being installed. The exhibit runs through 30Sept. For more info see http://titanicinternationalsociety.org/ -Salacia