Captain Lord and the Californian Please Read

[Eric Paddon]

"Where is the evidence that says absolutely without question that the rockets were Titanic's?"

Uh, excuse me but that is turning the entire process of basic historical methodology upside down by my reckoning. The evidence is (a) the Californian saw rockets fired and (b) the Titanic at the same time fired distress rockets. That is what is known as evidence, and the *only* basis for which the conclusion that the Californian saw Titanic's rockets can be questioned is if you come up with the name of another ship in the North Atlantic that night that is known to have fired off distress rockets or rockets of any kind. The burden of proof is on your side to come up with concrete answers as your alternative and not to simply ask questions that avoid giving an ultimate answer.

"The Captain subsequently initiated a massive cover-up, lying to the Boston Press and beyond." Adam seems to want to present his facts, not debate"

No, that's what is known as quoting from the factual record. Lord *did* lie to reporters and the proof of those lies are to be found in the Boston newspapers which Leslie Reade cited.

I think what amuses me most about these Californian threads is that Captain Lord's defenders seem determined to do two things. First, they try to assume a relativistic posture with regard to evidence by suggesting that evidence is merely "opinion" and that there can be no certainties of the historical reality of what happened no matter how strong and solid the evidence is, especially with regard to Captain Lord's basic negligence. But it is not opinion to note that Captain Lord engaged in negligent conduct by refusing to wake up his wireless operator or to acknowledge the possibility of distress rockets being fired, nor is it "opinion" to note that Lord lied and covered up afterwards. These are not trivial points in the overall scheme of the Californian debate and I think what frustrates me most is how the Lordites in this forum think that the only way to address these points is to trivialize or ignore them. And in the end, they do their side of the argument no more credit than Leslie Harrison did with his yarns about the Samson etc.

 

[Adam McGuirk]

Randy I understand that. I know they are both great researchers but what you seem to missed was that my first post was polite but it was Maureen not me who was rude. I think calling me and John mafia Et is rude even though she sounded like the ET dictator, telling us what we can and can't post. I know that Tracy does great researchers but sometimes when the facts are documented more than once and for a reason you disagree you bring grief on your self. I know they are both respected and I respect them just like everyone else in the forum. I do know that hardly anyone respects me though. Neither of them have presented evidence that would change the facts I listed. They steer clear of that and start throwing all this fake stuff like Maureen did. I started the post hoping it would be a calm debate she was the one who started the rudeness. IF Tracy and Maureen have evidence than I would like to see it.
Adam

 

[Adam McGuirk]

. "He is so in love with Smith that he can not see anything else"..........Maurr en give one could example where you got idea. I said the word admire. another example of you turning what I said around."I think that Adam is the very thing he hates." This one made me laugh. Thats nonsense. You know what I hate? Its when I present my facts not wanting to debate and someone like you turns everyword I say upside down with the intention of starting a war.
Adam

 

[Adam McGuirk]

Oh one more thing Maureen about you saying the rockets weren't Titanics......Do you think ships were just sailing through lighting off rockets........"You know we could hit something, sink and need them but lets just shoot rockets off like its the 4th of July!"

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Adam,

We all respect you. You have made valid points. And yes I did miss the "Mafia ET" charge. But she could not have been serious. And if I know Maureen, she'll apologize.

But, please, there have been enough upsets on this board not to need another one. Imagine me, thought to be such a classless instigator, trying to call for peace! This should cause some cackles.

Anyway, let's try to muzzle this one. It's too bad that every thread on this subject deteriorates. Can we try to salvage the discussion this time?

Randy

 

[Adam McGuirk]

Randy that was my intention all along. You have to admit that on my beginning post I was not intented to have an evil outcome. John Feeny, Eric Paddon, and you have all responded in civilized manner. The one thing I want is for Lordites to respond to a question not by saying its an opinion. Saying its an opinion means they don't have facts to present. I would love Maureen and Tracy to present info. but that won't happen. Number1) Neither are fond of me at the moment
Number 2) They will most likely throw info like Maureen did and say they werent Titanics rockets.

Randy, email them tell them to come and that I said I would debate friendly about it. They ignore my emails so you give it a try. We could have a great debate going. Thanks for trying to make peace. You are a member I have great respect for

Oh and the Mafia ET remark joke are not still offends people. I made a remark about people being stupid for jumping all over Camerons film but that still offended people even though I didn't mean they were flat out stupid. It was bad on her part when she sounded more like al copone than I did.
Thanks,
Adam

 

[Adam McGuirk]

Oh and the inlove with Smith offends me to. Number one I didnt act like a Lordite does with Lord. Number 2 all I said was I admire him. Randy you had to see that to. There was no indication that I was in love with Smith. That was a immature thing to say. Admire and inlove with are 2 different things. The only thing Titanic related I am in love with is Kate Winslet!

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Adam said: "The only thing Titanic related I am in love with is Kate Winslet!"

That makes two of us Adam!

Best regards,

Jason

 

[John M. Feeney]

Re: Kate Winslet -- oh, you guys!

Randy wrote: "Imagine me, thought to be such a classless instigator, trying to call for peace! This should cause some cackles."

Randy: I'd at least like to go on the record *formally* as stating that I've never perceived you as an instigator of any sort. Rather, I've often considered your pleas for a *reasoned* response to some erstwhile "sensitive" issues here at ET to be an island of sanity in a sea of madness. (You know, like that dreaded "R" word?) ;^)

But otherwise, I'm fairly in agreement with Adam. If his initial post seemed peeved in any way, Maureen's emotional outpouring went totally overboard. (I'm not saying this in anger, just pointing out what I think is obvious from the post.)

As you and I both know, certain topics (or even just perceptions) can raise ire around here faster than dust develops on a CRT. Nevertheless, I've tried to restrain my comments here to facts and reasoned observations of past events on the board. (Whether people *like* those facts or conclusions is another matter entirely. Of course, I haven't resorted to calling them the "ET Mafia".)

But I suggest the *discussion*, minus the angst, should go on. It's not the discussion itself that got out of hand, it's one post of Maureen's. (And in that regard, the claim that "Mike was right" was pretty self-fulfilling.)

Frankly, I don't know much at all about Tracy's research mindset, except for what I see here. But I do know that a fairly lengthy side-issue evolved on an unrelated topic when Tracy felt compelled to interject her unsubstantiated opinion. (See "A Remake of ANTR".) That one ran its course with repeated caustic accusations by Tracy of "closed-mindedness" against some members for simply relating the indisputable facts to her. (She couldn't and wouldn't attempt to refute them on any factual footing, despite repeated requests, but she certainly continued to object to them, vociferously.) Finally she offered the absurd contentions that those facts were merely "opinions", since "anything you read from a book is your opinion" (or about that) and the dubious advice that "good researchers want to read everything they can get their hands on". (Everything! She proceeded to name a number of publications, some of which are *generally* considered useful only for little more than lining the kitty litter pail. And I say this without bias -- one in particular is staunchly anti-Lord, but its historical underpinnings are almost entirely lacking.) To me this is the world turned upside down, as others have already noted, and it's hardly indicative of a disciplined research mindset.

So there is valid forensic justification for raising the issue of those three "inescapables" here. (Not in anger necessarily, but as an exposition of the evidence.) Otherwise those who wish to discuss the actual facts surrounding the Californian Incident are subject to continuous cries of "Foul" by those who simply don't *like* that evidence (and presumably wish to derail the discussion) or various other ruses -- the one-sided cheerleading section, the "Yeah, but" sidestep, the conjuring up of malice where none exists, and the inevitable "disappearing act". All of this comes across to me as childish and manipulative. (Just my opinion, of course.)

No ill will intended, Randy; never was. I'm just bent on seeing a better signal-to-noise ratio on this topic than we have in the past. It's really *not* personal. It's just that it's grown tedious having people sidetrack these issues with irrelevancies. In that regard, I can perceive these recent "backlash" posts by the "anti-Lord" contingent as a Magna Carta of sorts. (I think we're all just sick of hearing the "static".)

 

[John M. Feeney]

Mike wrote: "What seems to be debated is that those three facts are the beginning and end of the story."

Mike: At the risk of seeming unreasonable (it could happen), it doesn't appear to me that it's been *debated* at all, just rejected "whole hog" by some. And of course, the key issue is, the "beginning and end of" *what* story?

It's entirely reasonable to conclude that it does represent the beginning and end of the *negligence* verdict. Nothing more is needed to firmly establish that aspect. Barring some vastly unanticipated future *evidence* that could even erode that finding, it sticks like glue. (And no amount of mere discussion will change that.)

If you mean the *whole* Californian story -- all the in's and out's -- then I'd agree! There's lots to be learned there, lots of intriguing details. But they don't alter the big picture -- Lord's ultimate culpability. (Only new evidence could do that. And since Lord and just about every other mariner from 1912 are long gone, it's doubtful we're likely to see anything resembling that soon.)

 

[Logan Geen]

All of the points Adam mentioned were true. The deciding point for me in Lord's guilt was this: Lord asked what color the rockets were and Stone answered white. And what did Lord do? Simple, he rolled over and went back to sleep. The simple statement that the rockets were white should have been a gunshot in Lord's ear to run for the bridge and analyze the situation himself. But he didn't do that. It shouldn't take a huge push from someone else. He knew distress rockets were white, so that statement was a huge tipoff. And Adam is also correct about another ship firing rockets-the very idea is ridicilous (IMHO). The Titanic fires white rockets, the Californian sees white rockets at the same time. Hmmmmm. Rocket science (pardon the pun). And I think that Lord did initiate a coverrup. Because he didn't actually walk up and determine anything himself the argument that it was too dangerous to go to the Titanic's rescue is groundless-unless Lord was having an out-of-body experience while in bed and determining that he couldn't go to the rescue. I admire Tracy and most Lordites (apart from Harrison and Padfield) a great deal but I think that his actions that night need to looked at directly and not compared to the rest of his career. In my opinion he was simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time and made a bad choice.
Sincerely,
Logan Geen

 

[Don Tweed]

Exactly Logan!
As Walter Lord said,"The Titanic disaster had NOT yet occured, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time."
I am not a Lordite, or a Smithite, or any ite.
I love to discuss all possibilities and debate them!
That is the reason we are all here!
-Don

 

[Adam McGuirk]

I said: "The only thing Titanic related I am in love with is Kate Winslet!"

Jason said: That makes two of us Adam!

Im sure there are many more than us two Jason!
Adam

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

I also agree with Logan, that's what it all comes down to.

Adam said: "Im sure there are many more than us two Jason!"

Yes, I'm sure their are Adam!

Best regards,

Jason

 

[Adam McGuirk]

I agree with Logan too, basically because he said the same thing i did.
Adam