Hi Titanicsoul,

No worries, I'm sure I was your age once, if I am now older than you!

Best wishes,

Mark.

SORRY... I THOUGHT U ARE MY AGE...! LOL N' FOR THE BOOK THAT'S A GOOD..!


YUP I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THAT .. I MEAN THE BINOCULARS LOCKED IN AN OFFICE ROOM...

Hi TITANICsoul,

Quote:

Why would you assume I go to school, or that I am of school age? I did attend when I was younger, but I left school years ago.

Quote:

You mean the information about the binoculars? I hope you found it interesting.

Quote:

I saw the book’s text before it was published and helped with some of the research, so I don’t see much point in buying another copy.

Quote:

Sorry about what?


Hi onix1996,

Quote:

See my post above, where I said: ‘One regarded theory, based upon testimony, is that after David Blair (the ship's original second officer) left the ship, he neglected to inform anyone as to what he had done with the binoculars. It has been theorised that Blair left them locked in his cabin (which became Lightoller's). Lookout George Symons asked Lightoller about them, but Lightoller had a quick look in one of the officers' cabins (possibly Murdoch's) and could not find them -- apparently not looking in his own. Chief Officer Wilde confirmed to Symons that there were no binoculars for the lookouts. As I've said, there's more information in the enquiry transcripts and report, but we do know that the remaining officers appeared to be unaware of the location of any binoculars.’

I’d be interested in seeing any primary source evidence that indicates that the binoculars were actually taken ashore at Southampton and left there…There would be no reason to take them ashore in the first place, IMHO.

Best regards,

Mark.

oh?? n' what did you find out???

Actually, people thought the Binoculars were left in South Hampton but they weren't left in South Hampton, People thought they were left and just saying I also Registered myself on this at school. I snook into the school library because the library has the only computers in the school, except the office, and signed myself up at a computer.

erm.. hahaha i don't like school! i cannot enjoy it lol don't know if you can.. =P



lol... i have never of what you wrote before.. lol


but there is a book called TITANIC&OLYMPIC, THE TRUTH BEHIND THE CONSPIRACY.. maybe you can buy it...


sorry but im kinda busy..!


cyaaaa

Quote:

I wouldn't say that at all. See Lightoller's, Lee's, and Symons' testimony at Lord Mersey's enquiry. The men's testimonies make for interesting reading.

One regarded theory, based upon testimony, is that after David Blair (the ship's original second officer) left the ship, he neglected to inform anyone as to what he had done with the binoculars. It has been theorised that Blair left them locked in his cabin (which became Lightoller's). Lookout George Symons asked Lightoller about them, but Lightoller had a quick look in one of the officers' cabins (possibly Murdoch's) and could not find them -- apparently not looking in his own. Chief Officer Wilde confirmed to Symons that there were no binoculars for the lookouts. As I've said, there's more information in the enquiry transcripts and report, but we do know that the remaining officers appeared to be unaware of the location of any binoculars.

Quote:

I'm not sure if you're joking, but I hardly think 'treachery' would be the right description. Oversight...perhaps; incompetence...maybe. Hardly 'treachery,' especially in view of the widely held belief that the binoculars' importance has been exaggerated, and my own comments about how they can even restrict someone's field of vision.

If you're in school, try and enjoy it(!) -- the day goes much faster that way. ;)

Best regards,

Mark.

yes.. we were talking about the binoculars, geesh they got lost n' nobody knows how that happened...


i think it was treachery on titanic....!

i'll post more stuff later, i'm in school lol



cyaaaa

Hindsight is certainly a wonderful thing, eh?

As an aside, I do think there's always a little too much emphasis on the issue of the binoculars -- mentioned earlier in this thread. After all, they're better at identifying objects that have already been sighted as opposed to scanning the horizon -- where they limit the field of vision.

I won't get into the extensive debate as to any course change. Some have argued that Smith did alter course to the south, but just not enough; there's a mass of navigational data that makes for an intesting analysis.

Best wishes,

Mark.

tell me you wouldn't? lol

just the stupid people wouldn't mind an ice warning! hahahaha



cyaaaa