Main Menu
Recent News
Latest Articles
Random photos


Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index
   Titanic historic
  Mark Chirnside

Browsing this Thread:   4 Anonymous Users

 

 Bottom   Previous Topic   Next Topic
1

  •  Rate Thread
      Rate this Thread
      Excellent
      Good
      Average
      Bad
      Terrible
Poster Thread
Mark Chirnside
#1

Joined: 2004/6/23
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Who do you think was to blame? I think it was Smith he could have refused to go for the quickest crossing but because he didnt that makes him a yes man.
Posted on: 2004/8/27 16:04
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
#2

Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Hi!

Legally speaking, the safety of the ship was Captain Smith's responsibility.

Personally I don't think anyone alone was to blame. I think there were a variety of factors.

With regard to Smith, if he had been aiming for a Wednesday arrival then Titanic's speed would likely have been 21 1/2 knots. Although speed was increased to over 22 1/2 knots, I don't believe that he would have seen the need to slow down at 21 1/2 knots either. Clearly those navigating the ship misjudged what speed was safe, and overestimated their ability to see any hazard in time and take evasive action.

Best regards,

Mark.
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England.
'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.'
Posted on: 2004/8/27 16:54
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
#3

Joined: 2004/8/3
From Tallmadge, Ohio
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Good question....good answer..I agree with you Mark. :)
_________________
I'm not Kate Winslet OR Rose DeWitt Bukater.... please stop sending me fan mail!

My Website.. Titanic: Truth, Myths and Legends
Posted on: 2004/8/28 2:11
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  rose89
      rose89
#4

Joined: 2004/8/9
From somewhere deep down
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
im sorry mark but i'll have to disagree with you. in dr. ballard's book i read that she wasnt moving with 22 1/2 knots. actually, she was going slower. it was depending on the distance between the californian and stuff like that. i would tell you in details but its 12:30 and i have to go to school tomorrow.
_________________
"I am too involved now."
- Jack
~ ~
"To the world you may be one person, but to one person you may be the world."
~ ~
http://profiles.myspace.com/users/12108709
Posted on: 2004/8/31 5:57
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
#5

Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
[quote:6a84a53715="rose89"]im sorry mark but i'll have to disagree with you. in dr. ballard's book i read that she wasnt moving with 22 1/2 knots. actually, she was going slower.[/quote:6a84a53715]

Hi!

It's my opinion (and that of others) that the book is wrong. For instance, Boxhall assumed 22 knots. Check Dave Gittens' website, where he explains it in detail. Simply because the Titanic was found East of where it had been expected that she would be found, the book takes two knots off the ship's speed. Yet all the evidence we have from the ship -- passengers noticing increased speed on Sunday night, a report of 80 revolutions (matching that which Olympic acheived on her maiden voyage), the evidence about boilers being connected up at 7 p.m., and Kemish's evidence about an order being given to bring the ship up to 23 knots -- indicates that she speeded up.

It's also worth pointing out that the speed of 22 1/2 knots I mentioned is a speed through the water, not the speed over the ground. With the current against the ship, the speed over the ground would be slightly slower. My own belief is that by the time of the collision Titanic was moving through the water at 22 1/2 to 23 knots; a speed over the ground of 22 1/4 to 22 1/2 knots depending on the strength of the current.

Best regards,

Mark.
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England.
'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.'
Posted on: 2004/8/31 8:42
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  Rosie1912
      Rosie1912
#6

Joined: 2004/4/4
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
[quote:457828cb3e="rose89"]im sorry mark but i'll have to disagree with you. in dr. ballard's book i read that she wasnt moving with 22 1/2 knots. actually, she was going slower. it was depending on the distance between the californian and stuff like that. i would tell you in details but its 12:30 and i have to go to school tomorrow.[/quote:457828cb3e]

Might I suggest you not disagree with Mark. He's very knowledgeable, obviously and appears to know what he is talking about. He's actually an author himself, so do give him a bit more credit.

There is no book that is 100% accurate, not even Ballards. No one really knows how fast that ship was going, people can only guess and go by testimony at the Senate Inquiries.
Posted on: 2004/8/31 13:56
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  rose89
      rose89
#7

Joined: 2004/8/9
From somewhere deep down
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
i wasnt arguing yet, i was just disagreeing. im sorry mark. but thats what i read so i was just telling it.
_________________
"I am too involved now."
- Jack
~ ~
"To the world you may be one person, but to one person you may be the world."
~ ~
http://profiles.myspace.com/users/12108709
Posted on: 2004/8/31 22:37
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
#8

Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
[quote:7c6b7c5171="rose89"]i wasnt arguing yet, i was just disagreeing. im sorry mark. but thats what i read so i was just telling it.[/quote:7c6b7c5171]

Hi!

Yes, I always appreciate and consider beliefs that are different to my own. I am always willing to take account of contrasting information.

As rosie said, no book is 100% accurate (and, in case anyone's wondering, yes I am including mine among those that have errors -- which is why I won't be reading it).

All we know for sure is that Titanic covered 484, 519 and 546 miles on each of the full days prior to the collision, then 260 miles between Sunday noon and 11.40 p.m. We don't know her exact speed at any given time, just the averages, and that's why it's my personal opinion that the evidence I outlined is most important in estimating her speed. For instance, many respected books give a run of 386 miles for the first day; but if that was the case then Titanic would need to have acheived 30 knots(!) at one point to get to where her wreck is.

Kindest regards,

Mark.
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England.
'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.'
Posted on: 2004/9/1 9:15
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  rose89
      rose89
#9

Joined: 2004/8/9
From somewhere deep down
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
didnt they find the captain's book or whatever its called?
_________________
"I am too involved now."
- Jack
~ ~
"To the world you may be one person, but to one person you may be the world."
~ ~
http://profiles.myspace.com/users/12108709
Posted on: 2004/9/2 3:24
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  Rosie1912
      Rosie1912
#10

Joined: 2004/4/4
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
You mean the ship's log??? From my knowledge that has not yet been found and at this point, unless it was in a leather suitcase, which I am doubting it was, then I don't think there'd be anything left of it.. The sea is hard on paper items unless they're preserved in leather bags or so.. I believe all the artifacts that have been brought up that were paper items were found in some kind of protection (leather suitcases, wallets, etc).. Mark correct me if I'm wrong?
Posted on: 2004/9/2 7:48
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
 Top   Previous Topic   Next Topic
1


 


 You cannot start a new topic.
 You can view topic.
 You cannot reply to posts.
 You cannot edit your posts.
 You cannot delete your posts.
 You cannot add new polls.
 You cannot vote in polls.
 You cannot attach files to posts.
 You cannot post without approval.



Copyright © 2006-2012 Titanic.com
Home Photos Advertise Link to us Flower Box