Lights and Californian

[Arun Vajpey]

Yes this is why I am asking because the view would be constantly changing

That's why most of us strongly recommend reading Strangers On The Horizon. It contains in-depth discussion and explanatory illustrations to answer your questions.

 

[James T. Shorter]

That's why most of us strongly recommend reading Strangers On The Horizon. It contains in-depth discussion and explanatory illustrations to answer your questions.

I am still trying to get a copy not everyone can just get books.
regards
-James T. Shorter

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I am still trying to get a copy

It is available on both Amazon (UK & US) and Ebay at present.

 

[James T. Shorter]

It is available on both Amazon (UK & US) and Ebay at present.

Thank you!

 

[MrBojangles]

View attachment 112249
Tad Fitch
5.0 out of 5 stars An incredibly detailed study of the Titanic/Californian affair.
Reviewed in the United States on January 30, 2020
Verified Purchase
Anyone who is familiar with Sam Halpern's previous work, knows how detailed his research is, and how he takes great care to remain objective. Such is the case with this book. What is unique is that unlike previous works on this very controversial subject, which have all been agenda driven and selective in their use of facts (with one or two exceptions), Halpern doesn't rely on a subjective interpretation of eyewitness statements, many of which are contradictory. Yes, the witness accounts are examined, but then, areas where facts can be confirmed (using multiple lines of evidence) are subjected to scientific and navigational analysis, and only then are any conclusions drawn. Defenders of Captain Lord who feel he did nothing wrong, as well as those who feel he could have rescued everyone from Titanic, will both find something to be unhappy about in this book. This proves the author had the correct approach, and that the book wasn't written to prove a point, the facts be damned. This is essential reading for anyone interested in the topic. A word of warning, it is a hefty read and will take a lot of patience and focus to get through, if read cover-to-cover. At 17 chapters in length, plus appendices, it is one that researchers will come back to again and again, but is not a leisurely read or coffee table book. The chapter summaries recap important facts and conclusions for the lay reader. Highly recommended.
8 people found this helpful

Well, I must say I hesitated, briefly, before buying this book. Simply because I had asked how this book compared to Leslie Read’s book, and the above quoted commentary seems to favorably characterize this book—UNTIL I realized it was the author of the book tooting his own horn!

After purchasing this book, I stand corrected on this viewpoint. I’m a bit over 300 pages into this book and the research is nothing short of meticulous! Any serious student of the Titanic owes it to themselves to purchase a copy.

 

[Mike Spooner]

In my opinion I thought Captain Lord of the Californian got a pretty rough deal in the British Inquiry. Clearly was not used to be cross exam by a very clever smart barrister Attorney General, Sir Rufus Isaacs. Who had a strong influence over the Commissioner who was in charge of the inquiry Lord Mersey. And land up be used as the scapegoat for the 1500 whom died on Titanic on the most flimsy evident given.
As in Leslie Read book also try to shift the blame on Lord to. The book part and two giving near to the true was by Leslie Harrison in defence for Lord. OK it did have some mistakes but a far accuracy picture of captain Lord for his side of the story.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

In my opinion I thought Captain Lord of the Californian got a pretty rough deal in the British Inquiry.

Mike, any ship's captain who was informed that rockets were sighted from the bridge of his vessel and then, for all practical purposes, simply ignores those reports, deserves to get "a pretty rough deal" in any inquiry.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Mike, any ship's captain who was informed that rockets were sighted from the bridge of his vessel and then, for all practical purposes, simply ignores those reports, deserves to get "a pretty rough deal" in any inquiry.

Sam you may have case of his action, but he is also entitle to a fair hearing to which he clearly did not have.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

fair hearing

Define what is "fair" or "unfair". Was he or any of his crew prevented from answering any questions that were asked of them? Nor were they prevented from making any statements or bringing evidence such as their ship's log book into the hearings. They weren't on trial you know.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

And land up be used as the scapegoat for the 1500 whom died on Titanic on the most flimsy evident given.

Mike, if you're gonna discuss Titanic's victims then at least use the accurate number of 1496, rather than an inflated one.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Define what is "fair" or "unfair". Was he or any of his crew prevented from answering any questions that were asked of them? Nor were they prevented from making any statements or bringing evidence such as their ship's log book into the hearings. They weren't on trial you know.

Lord Mersey did some up the Inquiry by saying, Captain Lord of Californian could have rescued all or more of Titanic company. But captain Lord was denied for a rehearing to hear his side of the story. You call that fair inquiry! You are right they were not on trail but it was court hearing indeed where lawyers and barristers who were in charge and not marine expertise in charge.

 

[Julian Atkins]

I am of the view that if Captain Lord had been dealt with correctly at the British Inquiry, he would still have withheld Stone and Gibson’s statements of 18th April.

I don’t think that his appalling evidence would have been any different whatsoever. I don’t think that the British Inquiry had the right in any event to investigate more of matters relating to The Californian and certainly not to make a decision on Captain Lord’s Masters Certificate.

 

[marina_irc]

I am of the view that if Captain Lord had been dealt with correctly at the British Inquiry, he would still have withheld Stone and Gibson’s statements of 18th April.

I don’t think that his appalling evidence would have been any different whatsoever. I don’t think that the British Inquiry had the right in any event to investigate more of matters relating to The Californian and certainly not to make a decision on Captain Lord’s Masters Certificate.

Would you say that Captain Lord might have been better served by being brought to trial on the misdemeanor charge of failing to render aid to a vessel in distress? This would have allowed for a full and forceful defence in open court under criminal rules of evidence and guilt.

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

I detest conspiracy theories, and yet the only way I can see the treatment of Captain Lord at the hearing making any sense is by a conspiracy theory.

Lord Mersey et. al. "needed" a scapegoat. Captain Lord, by failing to act, provided the scapegoat. If Lord was truly guilty, then why wasn't a hearing held to revoke his Master's Certificate? The hearing wasn't held because, if it had been held, Lord would then have had the opportunity to call witnesses in his defense. I believe Captain Lord would have been able to refute the charges or establish reasonable doubt. That would have ruined the neat package assigning blame to the Californian. If Captain Lord was "guilty", why was he allowed to keep his Master's Certificate?

 

[Bob Read]

The Court of Public Opinion rendered a just judgment on Captain Lord.