GIANT WAVE - The Lighthouse - page 75

Macarthur in his shirtsleeves) for some reason, being blown into the sea by the wind
can probably be ruled out.
Tothecasual observerskimming overthefacts, thethree menwentdowntothewest
landing where a giant wave came and before the men had time to scramble to safety,
thewavehitthewestlanding andtheforceofwater whichwentabovethem thenswept
down and washed them all into the sea and they drowned there.
Bearinginmindthefactthatthereislittledoubtamongmanytheoriststhethreelight-
keepers were swept away by a giant wave, one of the most pertinent questions is why
did all three of them put themselves in such a position in the first place? The weather
was bad on Saturday 15 December 1900. Contemporary weather reports for 2 p.m. that
day (around the time the men disappeared) showed wind and sea to be Force 8 on the
Beaufort Scale. On the previous evening the wind and sea was recorded as Force 4. At
8 a.m. the following morning the wind and sea had been recorded at Force 7, so the
weather had worsened considerably and in the space of six hours from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.
it had got worse still, reaching Force 8. By 6 p.m. that day the weather had worsened
yet again to Force 9 and was one stage below storm force, although the men were be-
lieved to have disappeared that afternoon. 3 On the face of it, after they had eaten lunch,
Thomas Marshall and James Ducat went out into high westerly winds, a very heavy
swell with waves over 30ft and more than likely, rain and large quantities of sea spray.
BothJosephMooreandRobertMuirheadmentionintheirreportsthatJamesDucatwas
wearing sea boots and a waterproof and Thomas Marshall was wearing sea boots and
oilskins. Muirhead draws the conclusion that they wore these items of weatherproof
clothing to make their way down to the landing or somewhere near it. The main point
Muirhead makes is that they left the station (lighthouse) itself to venture outside in ap-
palling weather.Donald Macarthur ispresumed tohavealso left theshelter ofthelight-
house to go outside as well, but appears to have done so in his shirtsleeves. This as-
sumptionwasmadebyJosephMooreinhisreportbutwasnotmentionedinMuirhead's
report. Nonetheless, it can be assumed that Muirhead agreed with Moore's conclusion.
It is noteworthy that the crane, which was 70ft above the waterline, appeared to be
undamaged. In any event, whilst damage to the crane could not be avoided owing to its
fixed position, the box of ropes was another issue, as it could be argued that the three
menonthestationwereawareofthepotentialoftheeffectsoftheseaonthewestland-
ing and any damage or loss to equipment there could be construed as negligence on
their part with accompanying disciplinary measures, including fines, against them.
An argument could also be made as to why the west landing should be constantly in
use when the eastern landing did not have such adverse weather conditions affecting it
as often. Equally another argument could have been made as to why the box of ropes
shouldbeleftonthewestlandingsideandbeconstantlyexposedtosuchterribleeffects