No lights on the horizon...rockets sent up anyway?

My cautious approach extends to Captain Lord’s letter to the Board of Trade of 10th August 1912. In that letter he also states he told the Antillian and Titanic that The Californian was 17 miles away - which cannot be correct at all.
What Lord meant in that BOT letter concerning being 17 miles away is that he sent his position to Antillian, a message that was also picked up by Titanic, that showed that Californian was at a latitude that turned out to be 17 miles north of the latitude later transmitted by Titanic in her SOS calls. He did not mean that at 6:30pm ATS on the 14th he was that distance from Titanic. His purpose in writing about that was show he was far north of SOS position. What he did not make clear is that he was heading almost due west and therefore remained at that latitude until he stopped.
 
What Lord meant in that BOT letter concerning being 17 miles away is that he sent his position to Antillian, a message that was also picked up by Titanic, that showed that Californian was at a latitude that turned out to be 17 miles north of the latitude later transmitted by Titanic in her SOS calls. He did not mean that at 6:30pm ATS on the 14th he was that distance from Titanic. His purpose in writing about that was show he was far north of SOS position. What he did not make clear is that he was heading almost due west and therefore remained at that latitude until he stopped.
Hi Sam,

As you know well, what Captain Lord wrote to the Board of Trade in his handwritten letter dated 10th August 1912 in the latter part of the 2nd paragraph was:-

“14 April 6.30pm I sent my position to the Antillian and Titanic; this gives me seventeen miles away, and you will see it was sent some hours before the disaster. 15th April about 6.30am I gave my position to SS Virginian before I heard where Titanic sunk; that also gave me seventeen miles away. I understand the original Marconigrams were in court”.

The above part of the letter may have been poorly worded by Captain Lord. I accept that one interpretation is that as per your post 46 above. But it isn’t crystal clear, is it?

The same Captain Lord who wrote in his Ships Log (or relied upon what Stewart wrote up) that the Polar Star sight put them on the same latitude at 7.30pm as at noon on the 14th April (42 degrees 5 minutes), and stated in cross examination that the MSG sent to the Antillian was the same latitude whereas we know for certain the latitude sent as a MSG to the Antillian was 42 degrees 3 minutes north.

If Captain Lord meant to say in his 10th August 1912 letter to the Board of Trade that he was always on the same latitude since noon on the 14th April, he didn’t make that clear.

It certainly isn’t clear to me. A ‘position’ is 2 coordinates all dependent on time and speed and direction travelling in.

Then we have the ‘6.30am 15th August position sent to the SS Virginian also equating to 17 miles away’. We don’t yet have the Marconigram for this. I believe The Californian sent MSGs to the Virginian from 5.45am Californian ATS, 30 minutes after Durrant on the Mount Temple messaged Evans at 5.15am that Titanic had sunk and Titanic’s CQD position. Accepted chronology is that The Californian received the MSG of Titanic’s position from the Virginian at 6.05am Californian ATS. (I believe that The Californian sent it’s position to the Virginian some 15 to 20 minutes earlier).

According to the 10th August 1912 letter, Captain Lord claims his position was sent to the Virginian (at 6.30am) some 40 to 45 minutes after I consider it actually was sent, and by then he had been told of the Mount Temple message received at 5.15pm and that from the Frankfurt shortly afterwards - both of which included Titanic’s CQD position, and had already received the MSG from the Virginian of Titanic’s CQD at 6.05am.

He already had been told where Titanic had sunk by 6.30am!

This letter, in the above paragraph excerpt, is so riven with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and which undermines the basis of Captain Lord’s testimony to the British Inquiry (42 degrees 5 minutes latitude and the Polar Star sight) that I treat it with considerable caution. It also undermines the basis of Captain Lord’s 1959 Affidavit that when he received the MSG from the Virginian that The Californian was 19 1/2 miles away from the CQD position sent by the Virginian.

I also don’t think that Captain Gambell comes out particularly well. He gave the impression that the Virginian pretty much got to the CQD position. It didn’t.
 
Last edited:
In the letter of 10th August 1912 Lord mentions that "I understand the Marconigrams were in Court" when talking about the Antillian message and the Virginian message. We know the Commission had the Antillian message, but it would be nice to see the exchanges with Virginian if they exist.
 
In the letter of 10th August 1912 Lord mentions that "I understand the Marconigrams were in Court" when talking about the Antillian message and the Virginian message. We know the Commission had the Antillian message, but it would be nice to see the exchanges with Virginian if they exist.
Hi Sam,

I don’t think that the British Inquiry did have all the Virginian Marconigrams with The Californian. And only some of those have been published in recent years and online.

You know that the MSG from The Californian to the Virginian “Please give MSG on account MGY so as Capt can go off track down to MGY” was never referenced at either Inquiry nor did Evans or Captain Lord refer to it, and neither did Captain Gambell in his (UK) The Times interview of 22nd April 1912.

Hughes and Lee reference the above.

What someone needs to do is go through the folders and boxes at the Marconi Archive at Oxford and the Lord collection at the Liverpool Maritime Museum and dig out and find all this stuff. Captain Lord’s 21 May 1912 typed ‘aide memoir’ at Liverpool. All the Virginian Marconigrams at Oxford. Etc etc.

Cheers,
Julian
 
Here is the contentious SS Virginian MSG to The Californian on the copy Marconigram form that Oxford have in the Marconi Archive.

Note carefully the right hand top box for the [NYT] time of the MSG:-

“4 0
am”

The Virginian ATS time is 5.30 am; on The Californian it would be 5.50 am.

Captain Gambell said in his The Times interview of 22nd April that this MSG was sent at 5.45 am.
36098A29-1453-447A-99BB-9FD308D94404.jpg
 
Last edited:
Is it really "4 0am"? What is being taken as a handwritten 4 almost looks like a 6. Anyway, that would put the time that Lord heard back from Gambell at 5:50am Californian time, which is a full 10 minutes earlier than Lord claimed. The Mount Temple PV has Californian working Virginian at 4:00am NYT. I took this as the time Evans was asking for an official MSG from Virginian, not the time of Gambell's reply, which would correspond to 6:05am Californian time.

I wish I could find my notes as to where I got the 1h 30m time difference between NYT and Virginian's time. :(
 
I found my reference. It comes from the details provided by Gambell after arriving in Liverpool. The 1h 30m time difference between NYT and ATS was obtained by correlating the Virginian's PV times with his stated ship's times dealing with several messages received about Titanic. I also calculated how far and in what direction he was from the CQD position at 11:10pm NYT (12:40am ATS) where it was recorded that he said that the direction to the distress position was S55.5°E true (124.5°) and 178 miles. (I got 124.1°T and 180.3 miles, which I consider to be close enough.)
 
Is it really "4 0am"? What is being taken as a handwritten 4 almost looks like a 6.

Hi Sam,

The way I approached this was that the latitude of Titanic’s CQD in the Virginian MSG to The Californian includes “fours” and a “six”, and the way the “4” is written accords with the “4” in the time of the MSG; whereas the “6” does not.

Cheers,
Julian
 
The Mount Temple PV has Californian working Virginian at 4:00am NYT. This probably would have been the first contact time, which would have been when initial contact with Virginian was made and exchange of TRs if protocol was followed. Then a request MSG from Lord for confirmation, followed by MSG response from Gambell. Perhaps the 4 0 time on the office form reflected the initial contact time? As you know, Gambell's 5:45 ATS (4:15 NYT) does seems to fit with Lord's claim that he received Gambell's reply at 6am Lord's time.
 
Hi Sam,

“4 0
am”
[NYT]

(The SS Virginian Marconigram MSG, that I referenced and posted a pic of)

would be 5.30am ATS SS Virginian,

would be 5.46am ATS Mount Temple,

would be 5.50am ATS The Californian.

The 4am [NYT] entry in the Mount Temple PV of Durrant that “MWL [The Californian] wkn [working] MGN [SS Virginian] must be as above, and therefore additional and corroborating evidence that the MSG to The Californian was 15 minutes earlier than Captain Gambell said to the press (and contrary to the Marconigram of this MSG), and 15 minutes earlier than the generally accepted time of 6.05am Californian ATS this MSG was received.

When evaluating the primary source documents, I think that it is important to consider the original Marconigram forms whether absolutely original or those marked “copy”.

I suppose that my real point is that Captain Gambell’s press report may contain inaccuracies, and he was never called as a witness to the British Inquiry neither were his 2 Marconi wireless operators.
 
Back
Top