Through my regressions, and my subsequent research to verify my regression,
I have melded the time line associated with Titanic, and Tommie's
perspective of that event. This is how I understand the history of the
Titanic tragedy:
J.P. Morgan purchased White Star Line in 1902. Although it still flew
under the British flag, the island was buzzing in speculation. Could White
Star ships, now under foreign ownership, be conscripted into the Royal Navy
during time of war?
Cunard's owners convinced the British Government to subsidize the building
of three immense ships, built as liners, but really light cruisers that they
could convert to wartime use.
As a result, Lusitania, Mauritania and Aquitania were born.
White Star, coveted the size, technological advances, speed and luxury, of
the new Cunard ships. Fortunately, White Star did not need to look to the
government for money. It had the deep pockets of J.P. Morgan. Bruce Ismay
was placed under much pressure. Morgan wanted to get even bigger, more
luxurious ships completed before Cunard's ships gained a greater foothold in
the industry.
Harland and Wolff's Chairperson, Lord Pirrie, was also an employee of J.P.
Morgan. This arrangement occurred when Morgan bought White Star through
the International Mercantile Marine company. Contractually, Harland and
Wolff constructed all of White Star's fleet, so the Shipbuilding Company had
that economic stake in White Star's success. They made Lord Pirrie a
Director of the Mercantile Marine.
Enter Thomas Andrews on the scene.
Andrews was a workaholic, obsessed by his
love of shipbuilding. He was perhaps the most knowledgeable man at the
Shipyard. He had a working knowledge of fifty-three departments in the Firm
as managing Director and Chief Design Engineer. He oversaw all aspects of
the design of ships going out of Harland and Wolf. They knew Andrews not
only as a hard working perfectionist, but also as a man's man. He was not
afraid to take his coat off and get in the thick of work with the men under
him. He demanded perfection, but was also kind at heart. Had he lived, he
undoubtedly would have gotten heavily involved in Labor Issues in his
country, and represented the every day, working man.
When confronted with Ismay's proposition about bigger, more luxurious ships, Andrews was at first hesitant.
He was concerned about some very real problems large ships would
have. He took an avid interest in the building of Cunard's new ships. He no
doubt wondered himself about the disposition of White Star's fleet in
wartime. Tommie visited John Brown Yards, and made notes of their problems
and techniques. His concerns were confirmation about building ships as
large or even larger than Lusitania, when he learned of a few near-misses
reported by Lusitania's Captain. The large ships were VERY unwieldy.
After exhaustive study, he and his design team came up with a design that
would cover most of his major concerns for building large ships. This
included: a double hull, complete bulkheads with watertight
sub-compartments, a large rudder, rotating Welin davits and more than enough
lifeboats to get passengers safely off a foundering ship.
White Star Line was not beholding to the British government, but to the
deep pockets of J. P. Morgan. Their orders were to build the ships quickly,
make them as luxurious as possible, and certify them quickly. They were to
be put to sea rapidly enough to absorb any advantage Cunard might have
initially gained.
The Line approved Andrews' painstaking designs only where the requirements,
stated above for White Stars was met. They drastically changed the designs
in favor of capacity, and decor. Thomas Andrews fought a losing battle to
have the ships built properly. Although the ships exceeded the safety
regulations of the British Board of Trade, Tommie argued that the ships were
still going out half-built.
The rush to build the ships pushed the steel making technology to its
limits. Tommie complained that they were pumping the wrought iron for
rivets coming out of Colvilles and Company in Glasgow, out "like bilge
water" and they were poor in quality. He instructed the riveters to inspect
all the rivets for cracks and imperfections. Even then, given the poor
quality of the wrought iron, that was only a haphazard approach.
Whereas Lusitania took more than two months to certify, they certified
both Olympic and Titanic in less than a day. Granted they built them under
Andrews' strenuous direction, but nonetheless, they were still works in
progress during their maiden voyages. Morgan's money bought certification
under the understanding those "minor" problems would be fixed while underway
or in New York Harbor.
In Titanic's case, one minor problem was a fire in the forward coal room,
that threatened the hull's integrity. Andrews and his men were working to
points past exhaustion during the voyage, and the fire only made matters
worse.
On April 13th, 1912, they decided that it got Titanic to New York faster,
in case the fire, now under control, re-emerged as a problem. The Captain
ordered the last two boilers lit and pressed on at twenty-two knots.
Titanic was now exceeding her designed speed of twenty-one knots.
When the collision with the iceberg occurred, all the factors that Andrews
had originally feared came into fruition. The ship was unwieldy, and
navigated by a crew unfamiliar with her handling characteristics. Titanic's
small rudder exacerbated her unwieldiness. A double hull might have allowed
Titanic to survive the glancing blow. Complete transverse bulkheads to "B"
deck would have slowed the sinking. Finally enough lifeboats would have
made Titanic more a lesson in irony-- that is the sinking of an "unsinkable"
ship-- rather than a tragedy of infamous proportions.
Thomas Andrews and the cadre of engineers and apprentices he assembled to
accompany him were all killed. Their full knowledge of what really happened
died with them. Or did it?
I realize that claiming the memories of another life is a big stretch for some people. It is for some rather prominent people, a reason to ridicule me and others because the memories we recount, do not always agree with history. Ironically, if our memories agree completely with history we invite the same criticism for copying history.
History cannot and never will be an accurate means to determine the veracity of past-life memories. Anyone who understands academia knows that historians, scientists or philosophers are usually divided into three camps about any given subject. They can't even agree with each other!! They use the same snide comments, skepticism and derisive tactics on each other, that they use on us. All you need do is pass through any given history list on the net, and see the back-biting that goes on.
Historians in my opinion become mezmorized by facts. They interpret history through the filter of their own limited personal experiences. And therein lies one possible clue to verifying a past-life account. Does the past-life experience correlate to the presnt-life?
How does a rancher in Gila Bend, AZ know about the life of another man from another continent and another era? How can that man tell you about incidents in that life found only in obscure places unknown to him. How can that man challenge historians and naval architects, not with facts, but with the perspective of a man who built ships? That is how you determine the veracity of a past-life claim! From it's perspective, not from history; which is fraught with inaccuracies and a lack of insight, bred by academic jealousies.
As an example to support my opinions, I offer you a recent letter I received from the founder of the Titanic Historical Society, Mr. Edward Kamuda. The letter appears on THS stationery. I hope you find it as enlightening as did I.
afterword A Historical Perspective
Return to the Main Page