Californian passengers were there any

[Robert T. Paige]

>>As another master mariner once said, when in doubt a master should never assume, always confirm<<

I'll preface this comment with the caveat :
"This is what I've always heard.":

Which is exactly the first thing that Capt. Rostron of the Carpathia did ... he asked Cottam to confirm the Titanic's distress call.

 

[Inger Sheil]

Me, myself and I

Thought so.

in reality, I've read Molony's latest (Titanic and the Mystery Ship) and found it an unconvincing argument on behalf of the innocence of the Californian.

You're perfectly entitled to that opinion. Although I find that statement a very simplistic reduction of the complexities of his approach - there's far more shading in Senan's approach than this summation asserts. Personally I found a good deal of food for thought on matters that I had once - as a committed "Anti-Lordite" - thought quite settled to my own satisfaction.

Since this particular thread has delved into the screenplay of ANTR, I was being rather tongue-in-cheek with my characterization of Molony. In my view, he has set himself as a final arbiter of what happened that night in regards to the Californian

How so? What specific reason do you have for believing this? Simply because the man does hold the same point of view - or reach the same conclusions as you do on some elements of the evidence - does not mean he is setting himself up as the final arbitrator. He has written a book comprehensively putting forward his arguments, and no doubt he is sincere in his belief that he is correct in his interpretation and thorough in his presentation of material. The same could be said of, say, Leslie Reade in "The Ship that Stood Still" or, for that matter, a number of authors on other subjects connected with the disaster. Do you likewise disparage them all as would-be "gods" or castigate them for setting themselves up as final arbitrators? Or do you reserve this approach for Senan Molony?

 

[Mark Baber]

"Molony clearly and persuasively presents his case that the Californian was not the mystery ship seen by the Titanic that night.
...
Titanic and the Mystery Ship is the best account that I've read from a pro-Lord point of view."

Source: Book Review, Titanic and the Mystery Ship, reviewed by Tim Trower, THS Commutator No. 175.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Since this particular thread has delved into the screenplay of ANTR, I was being rather tongue-in-cheek with my characterization of Molony. In my view, he has set himself as a final arbiter of what happened that night in regards to the Californian

"Molony clearly and persuasively presents his case that the Californian was not the mystery ship seen by the Titanic that night.
...
Titanic and the Mystery Ship is the best account that I've read from a pro-Lord point of view."

Well, the debate on the Californian will be ongoing no matter what. For the reasons that Inger has stated, I doubt that Senan would put himself in a position to have the last word on the subject.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

For the reasons that Inger has stated, I doubt that Senan would put himself in a position to have the last word on the subject.

I agree with you Jason. Senan had stated that the aim of his book was to examine the totality of evidence in light of the discovery of the wreck, and that what he presents in his book will appeal to the common sense of the reader. Nowhere did he suggest that his book was the last word on the subject, or that he was the final arbiter. He knows better than that.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Hi Sam,

Senan had stated that the aim of his book was to examine the totality of evidence in light of the discovery of the wreck, and that what he presents in his book will appeal to the common sense of the reader.

Exactly. Then the reader can make his/her own conclusions as to whether the Californian was the mystery ship or not, based on all the evidence that Senan presents in his book.

Cheers,

Jason

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Jason, I will state it a little differently. Senan does a pretty good job of forming conclusions for the reader based on what he presented and how he presented it. That is not too different from what other authors do. Rarely do you have a work where the reader is given a truly unbiased choice to make. That is why we have not seen, or are likely to see, the last word in this story.

Now maybe if they ever find that missing log line from the Californian the matter could be closed. But even then someone will come up with some off the wall theory to discredit such a find, or try to explain why it got to where it was found by conspirators of evil.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Senan does a pretty good job of forming conclusions for the reader based on what he presented and how he presented it.

No argument there, Sam.

But even then someone will come up with some off the wall theory to discredit such a find, or try to explain why it got to where it was found by conspirators of evil.

Sure, why not. Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to toss into the mix!

 

[Timothy Trower]

I stand firmly behind that review. But before you cherry-pick select items for posting, I'll remind you that I took him to task in a couple of areas, and that reading the book did not change my mind about this subject. (These areas included justifiable criticism of the type style and size used as well as leading of the type -- maybe a minor point to the average reader, but terrible from a typographic point of view; and the discussion of the rockets themselves, both from the Titanic as well as the Carpathia as seen on the Californian.)

I wrote: "Another concern is that occasionally he dismisses outright testimony that does not support his own conclusions. The words of Third Officer Charles Groves are dismissed out of hand (“Groves is wrong again here” page 222) while testimony from Apprentice Officer James Gibson, at best a sometimes confused witness, is taken at face value. Groves own 1957 manuscript, The Middle Watch is dismissed as flawed due to the authors distance in time from the events in 1912, but Captain Lord’s last testament, written in 1959, is considered by Molony as the final word."

"Titanic and the Mystery Ship" is the best pro-Lord book I've read, but there are other persuasive authors and writers who take the same source material that Molony did and come to entirely different conclusions.

I wrote that review fairly and impartially. No doubt that a reader of the entire review may assume (or even find) a bias on my part against Molony, but I've written before and I'll say it again, "The Titanic and the Mystery Ship" is the best pro-Lord book I've read. But I also think that Molony is wrong in his conclusions whether he "proved" them or not.

(And this discussion has gone far beyond the confines of this thread. I just checked the index of the book, and didn't find a single mention of passengers on the Californian!)

 

[Inger Sheil]

Just to revisit my question, Tim - why, specifically, do you believe Senan has set himself up as the 'final arbiter' of the Californian question? And do you disparage all authors who write books - or for that matter, articles - that they believe to be comprehensive treatments of controversial subjects as would-be "gods", or do you reserve this personal judgement for Senan? Did Leslie Reade set himself up as the final arbiter of the issue when he wrote "The Ship that Stood Still"?

I ask, because I've known him for many years, and if ever a man lacked hubristic aspirations that man is Senan. He will defend his views with tenacity and passion, and will argue to the last for what he believes in (I know - I've been arguing matters relating to the Titanic, including the "mystery ship", with him for years), but he suffers from no delusions of divinity. On the contrary - I've always observed him to be a modest man who deflects personal praise, has a self-depractory sense of humour, and who be acutely embarrassed if anyone suggested he was a God (or even a god).

 

[Timothy Trower]

Inger,

Does this have anything to do with passengers carried on the Californian? If so, I'd be glad to continue the discussion. If not, this conversation needs to be carried to a thread dealing with Senan Molony.

 

[Mark Baber]

I wrote that review fairly and impartially.

Absolutely.

No doubt that a reader of the entire review may assume (or even find) a bias on my part against Molony

I certainly didn't read it that way, Tim (although I kinda guessed from what you said there that you didn't agree with his conclusions).

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>"Titanic and the Mystery Ship" is the best pro-Lord book I've read, but there are other persuasive authors and writers who take the same source material that Molony did and come to entirely different conclusions.<<

I don't know if I'd call it the best, or even that Senan would, but it's something I'm inclined to agree with. Whatever one's stand, I think he did a wonderful job in presenting the case for the defense, and that may well be the book's primary value. People have often wondered why Captain Lord was never prosocuted even though there were grounds to do so.

The reason in my opinion, was purely political. No matter how solid your case may be, a jury is a very fickle and unpredictable breed of cat. The only thing the defence has to do is establish reasonable doubt and the authorities were well aware of that, and a competant lawyer would have no trouble at all latching on to the same points which Senan made. The last thing they wanted to do was take that sort of gamble. The Titanic was embarrassing enough in it's own right without giving the chosen Bad Boy an opportunity to take a walk with the jury's blessing.

 

[Inger Sheil]

Does this have anything to do with passengers carried on the Californian? If so, I'd be glad to continue the discussion. If not, this conversation needs to be carried to a thread dealing with Senan Molony.

You raised the point here - I was simply addressing it in the same thread. My question to you still stands - I'd be happy to continue this discussion here, in another thread dealing exclusively with his work or via private messages...whichever suits you.