Stanley Lord guilty as charged

[Julian Atkins]

Meaning that the assertion (from some) of Stone and Gibson being unable to see the rockets ascending to half-masthead level from such a distance simply doesn't hold water... if you'll forgive the analogy.

If both vessels were a mere 12 miles apart, Fred Fleet and Reg Lee would undoubtedly have seen Californian's lights from the Titanic's crow's nest... both men testified they saw NOTHING during their shift. And yet, Californian was immobile from 22:21 April 14 to 06:00 April 15. The mystery vessel seen by passengers and crew of Titanic was not; Boxhall testified to seeing both sidelights (red/green) then starboard sidelight (green) then stern light (white)... it was approaching Titanic practically head-on - another reason to prove Titanic was not facing north - turned starboard in a u-turn and steamed away... how could that have possibly been Californian??? C'mon, man...

You canna' change the laws of physics, cap'n!

No, because at the time Fleet and Lee were still on watch:-

1. They were frozen cold

2. Fleet had not had an eye test for many years.

3. I could comment on Lee and his subsequent death but it seems to aggravate some.

4. At the time Titanic struck the iceberg and for some time after, The Californian was heading NE from Titanic and therefore was showing nothing of her lights to Titanic except a stern light out of visible range or so in distinct.

5. Fleet and Lee were more concerned about their earlier failure to spot the iceberg than looking for the lights of other ships, and had been given no orders to look for the lights of other ships.

6. I wouldn’t take much notice as to Boxhall’s evidence. He thought Titanic was heading westwards - and so by implication the lights he claims he saw of another ship were the other side of the ice field - which is ridiculous and a nonsense. His estimate of distance was based solely on the required minimum visible distance of ship’s lights in the Regulations.

Do we have to go into all this again? Like @Arun Vajpey I would strongly suggest you buy @Samuel Halpern his excellent book “Stranger on the Horizon”.

In many respects it is utterly useless referring to old stuff such as Harrison and Reade that were poorly written in part, and also in part selective, partial, and not objective.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

At the time Titanic struck the iceberg and for some time after, The Californian was heading NE from Titanic and therefore was showing nothing of her lights to Titanic except a stern light out of visible range or so indistinct.

Reading Sam's book, that's what I thought had happened. Moreover. Fleet and Lee would have been looking ahead, along a small arc in the Titanic's westward path at the time.

Fleet and Lee were more concerned about their earlier failure to spot the iceberg than looking for the lights of other ships, and had been given no orders to look for the lights of other ships

I agree that Fleet and Lee would have been otherwise pre-occupied after the accident, as the Titanic slowed and finally stopped. But IMO it is a bit harsh to say that they had "failed" to spot the iceberg in time; given the stygian darkness ahead, I do not believe that any other lookout (or OOW for that matter) could have spotted the object ahead earlier even though they might have believed otherwise. As I have said several times before, @Samuel Halpern has illustrated that very well with his serial sketches in his superb article Encounter in the Night, which can be found on his Titanicology page. Fleet, Lee and perhaps even Murdoch were all part of that erroneous belief that even with the ship's speed and prevailing darkess, the clarity of the night meant that they could have spotted any iceberg early enough to take evasive action. They were very wrong, of course, as events proved.

In many respects it is utterly useless referring to old stuff such as Harrison and Reade that were poorly written in part, and also in part selective, partial, and not objective.

I fully agree. Though at the opposite sides of this debate, both A Titanic Myth by Harrison or The Ship That Stood Still by Reade simply manipulate or even create 'evidence' to support their views and especially with the former, don't even make a good job of it. In particular, Harrison's book enrages me each time I read it because he keeps harping about facts that are irrelevant to what Stone and Gibson saw that night and the failure to take suitable action by them and their Captain.

 

[Julian Atkins]

@Arun Vajpey perhaps the words I used “failure to spot the iceberg” might in respect Fleet and Lee be instead be “worried about being blamed for Titanic hitting the iceberg”. Either way, I don’t think it makes a great deal of difference, but I think my principal argument is that Fleet and Lee were not going to be looking around a large arc (actually as Titanic ended up heading when eventually what might have been a small arc) and could in any event see nothing discernible of The Californian’s lights as whilst they remained on duty The Californian’s lights were “shut in” except for a beyond visual range stern light.

Similarly, to Stone and Gibson, and earlier Groves with Captain Lord from 11.52pm Titanic time Titanic had “shut in” her lights to The Californian.

What then happens later is another matter.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

@Arun Vajpey perhaps the words I used “failure to spot the iceberg” might in respect Fleet and Lee be instead be “worried about being blamed for Titanic hitting the iceberg”.

Yes, they would certainly be worried about being blamed though it is also possible they were worried that they had somehow failed to spot it earlier. I suspect it wasn't just the officers who held a mistaken belief about how far away icebergs could be seen at night. All seamen of the time were probably imbued with that false confidence so when the lookouts sighted an iceberg at a much closer range than they expected to first see it they might genuinely (though incorrectly) have been concerned that they must have missed it previously.

Either way though they were certainly neither looking for nor expecting to see the lights of another ship.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Yes, they would certainly be worried about being blamed though it is also possible they were worried that they had somehow failed to spot it earlier. I suspect it wasn't just the officers who held a mistaken belief about how far away icebergs could be seen at night. All seamen of the time were probably imbued with that false confidence so when the lookouts sighted an iceberg at a much closer range than they expected to first see it they might genuinely (though incorrectly) have been concerned that they must have missed it previously.

Agreed. As professional lookouts who were actually on duty at the time the Titanic collided with the iceberg, Fleet and Lee would have been worried that they might be held culpable during the Inquiries. To the credit of both committees, that did not happen.

Yes, we can say that seamen like lookouts and others could easily have "inherited" the false belief of their officers and captain that they would be able to see most icebergs at a safe distance even on a dark night as long as it was clear. That belief was handed down from one generation of sailors to another but in the meantime, ships were becoming larger and faster, thus significantly reducing that "safe distance".

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I suspect it wasn't just the officers who held a mistaken belief about how far away icebergs could be seen at night.

I don't think that any of the lookouts had a clue as to how far away an iceberg could be sighted at night. The key piece of information given to them was to keep a sharp eye out for "small ice and growlers" (which had to assume that they even knew what a growler was)." Any ice hazard, large or small, would be directly ahead in their path, which I believe tended to keep them more focused on what might be straight ahead as opposed to a wider arc. IMO, since the ship hit the berg, they would have thought that they would be blamed for not seeing the berg in time to avoid, thus Lee's thick haze story, and Fleet's later saying that they would have spotted the berg earlier if they were given binoculars.

On a separate note, what I found interesting was Capt. William Turner's (of Mauretania and Lusitania fame) view of the value of having two lookouts in the nest: "ordinary cases, two in the crow's-nest. I call them Board of Trade ornaments; all they think about is home and counting their money."

When he was asked about giving them binoculars, his reply was: "Certainly not; might as well give them soda water bottles."

[From his 1913 deposition at the Limitation of Liability hearings 30 April 1913.]

 

[Julian Atkins]

As professional lookouts who were actually on duty at the time the Titanic collided with the iceberg, Fleet and Lee would have been worried that they might be held culpable during the Inquiries. To the credit of both committees, that did not happen.

I wouldn’t regard Lee and Fleet as “professional lookouts”. Or “professionals”!

Neither had any specific training for their role, and no regular eyesight tests. I’ve said more on Lee elsewhere, so won’t repeat my thoughts again.

I think reviewing the evidence at the time that most Captains recognised that they couldn’t rely on the lookouts.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Any ice hazard, large or small, would be directly ahead in their path, which I believe tended to keep them more focused on what might be straight ahead as opposed to a wider arc.

Agreed completely. When I mentioned the "small arc" in my post #3767 above, I meant a relatively narrow field of vision ahead on the path of the ship and a little to either side.

IMO, since the ship hit the berg, they would have thought that they would be blamed for not seeing the berg in time to avoid, thus Lee's thick haze story, and Fleet's later saying that they would have spotted the berg earlier if they were given binoculars.

True. Since even the Captain had overestimated how far away they (whether the lookouts or OOW) could have spotted an iceberg on a clear night like the one the Titanic was passing through, IMO it is safe to assume that complacent belief had filtered down to the crew as well. Not being very erudite or analytical, the lookouts might have wondered if - even if not actually believed - they could have spotted that iceberg a trifle earlier. It is therefore not very surprising that they tried to cover themselves with stories of a "haze" or point out the absence of binoculars (but that's another story ).

Capt. William Turner's (of Mauretania and Lusitania fame) view of the value of having two lookouts in the nest: "ordinary cases, two in the crow's-nest. I call them Board of Trade ornaments; all they think about is home and counting their money."

Yes, I had read about Captain Turner's views about lookouts. @Samuel Halpern, don't you think that was a bit harsh? At the very least lookouts would have provided two pairs of additional eyes for observation ahead and no other responsibility. The OOW on the other hand, might have had to very briefly attend to other things on the bridge.

 

[Steven Stuart]

but what matters is they SAW the rockets and failed to act on it.

They 'whys' may be debatable, but the fact that they saw the rockets is in no way disputed.

I agree... no-one that I've ever heard or read disputes that Stone and Gibson were seeing Titanic's rockets, and the onus was clearly on Stone as OOW to have impressed more on his skipper what he was witnessing (or taken the initiative and sent Gibson to wake Evans)... but also on Lord who admitted to not being satisfied with Stone's 01:10 am report. I think that's what Lord was likely referring to when he mentioned there being "a certain slackness" on the Californian that night, a failure to imagine the unimaginable or even grasp the potential gravity of what was happening 19 nautical miles southward of them... I'm sure Lord regretted his inaction to the day he died, not that it would have changed a single thing regarding the catastrophic loss of life even had he acted differently.

No, because at the time Fleet and Lee were still on watch:-

1. They were frozen cold

2. Fleet had not had an eye test for many years.

And...?

Fleet did admit to having had an eye test about a year or two prior by the Board of Trade but what bearing does that have on him seeing lights in the outer darkness? Both he and/or Reg Lee would have saw something if Californian was 12 miles away... both men testified they saw nothing during their shift but Fleet did see a stern light off the port bow from around 01:00 am... also seen by Boxhall, Captain Smith, and others, passengers and crew alike. If they saw the light on deck then Fleet and Lee most definitely would have seen it from the elevated advantage of the crow's nest during their shift had it been there... they didn't because it wasn't, it really is as simple as that.

Care to explain how that light - of which lifeboats rowed towards yet never reached nor was that unidentified vessel seen upon breaking dawn - was or could have been in any way the Californian?

I wouldn’t take much notice as to Boxhall’s evidence.

No, you're absolutely right... I really shouldn't take seriously the evidence (as corroborated by others on Titanic) of a qualified and experienced officer who just happened to be present and experience these events in real-time as they were happening then give evidence under oath while those memories were still fresh in his mind.

From now on, I'll rely solely on armchair online navigators pontificating on said events 100+ years after the fact...

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I've ever heard or read disputes that Stone and Gibson were seeing Titanic's rockets, and the onus was clearly on Stone as OOW to have impressed more on his skipper what he was witnessing (or taken the initiative and sent Gibson to wake Evans)... but also on Lord who admitted to not being satisfied with Stone's 01:10 am report.

Plenty of "Lordites" have claimed that the lights seen by Stone and Gibson as well as the rockets came from a "phantom ship" that was between the Titanic and the Californian. A certain former Captain, marine investigator and former ET member has even written articles and a book about it.

I'm sure Lord regretted his inaction to the day he died, not that it would have changed a single thing regarding the catastrophic loss of life even had he acted differently.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Julian Atkins]

I agree... no-one that I've ever heard or read disputes that Stone and Gibson were seeing Titanic's rockets, and the onus was clearly on Stone as OOW to have impressed more on his skipper what he was witnessing (or taken the initiative and sent Gibson to wake Evans)... but also on Lord who admitted to not being satisfied with Stone's 01:10 am report. I think that's what Lord was likely referring to when he mentioned there being "a certain slackness" on the Californian that night, a failure to imagine the unimaginable or even grasp the potential gravity of what was happening 19 nautical miles southward of them... I'm sure Lord regretted his inaction to the day he died, not that it would have changed a single thing regarding the catastrophic loss of life even had he acted differently.



And...?

Fleet did admit to having had an eye test about a year or two prior by the Board of Trade but what bearing does that have on him seeing lights in the outer darkness? Both he and/or Reg Lee would have saw something if Californian was 12 miles away... both men testified they saw nothing during their shift but Fleet did see a stern light off the port bow from around 01:00 am... also seen by Boxhall, Captain Smith, and others, passengers and crew alike. If they saw the light on deck then Fleet and Lee most definitely would have seen it from the elevated advantage of the crow's nest during their shift had it been there... they didn't because it wasn't, it really is as simple as that.

Care to explain how that light - of which lifeboats rowed towards yet never reached nor was that unidentified vessel seen upon breaking dawn - was or could have been in any way the Californian?



No, you're absolutely right... I really shouldn't take seriously the evidence (as corroborated by others on Titanic) of a qualified and experienced officer who just happened to be present and experience these events in real-time as they were happening then give evidence under oath while those memories were still fresh in his mind.

From now on, I'll rely solely on armchair online navigators pontificating on said events 100+ years after the fact...

Hi Steven,

I think it is extremely important on such a contentious matter to be perfectly precise. I totally accept that many do not agree with my assessment of Boxhall, Bride, and Phillips, and everyone is entitled to assess the evidence and interpret it so long as those interpretations do not result in perverse conclusions.

I don't accept your contention that Fleet and Lee would have seen something of The Californian if it was 12 miles away. As I have already stated, The Californian was heading NE of Titanic at the relevant time, and only The Californian's stern light would have been seen - but could not as it was outside visible range. To throw this arguement back at you, this is why Boxhall considered The Californian to be closer than it was once The Californian had later swung round.

Fleet wasn't in the crows nest on Titanic at 1am.

Are you actually suggesting that lifeboats could row 12 nautical miles in the darkness with very few people in any of the lifeboats good at rowing?

Are you suggesting that as dawn broke someone in a lifeboat should instead of concentrating on the Carparthia rescuing them be instead looking northwards to see a vessel 12 miles away? Remember that visible distance from a life boat was less than from say the bridge of another vessel. Captain Rostron said he didn't see The Californian till much later; 2/O Bissett said he saw the smoke from The Californian in his memoirs.

Cheers,
Julian

 

[Samuel Halpern]

2/O Bissett said he saw the smoke from The Californian in his memoirs.

If memory serves, I believe Bissett also estimated that the vessel that had seen smoke coming from at that time was about 10 miles away. And let's not forget Capt. Moore who stated, as he saw Californian steaming westward across the ice field around 6am, that she appeared to be about as far northward from him as Carpathia was then eastward from him.

 

[Steven Stuart]

Plenty of "Lordites" have claimed that the lights seen by Stone and Gibson as well as the rockets came from a "phantom ship" that was between the Titanic and the Californian. A certain former Captain, marine investigator and former ET member has even written articles and a book about it.

And they'd be wrong. It was undoubtedly Titanic's socket signals that messrs Stone and Gibson were witnessing. As far as a "phantom ship" is concerned, I do not believe that was Titanic - others disagree, and I respect that viewpoint - but we'll not go around that mulberry bush once again.

Are you referring to Jim Currie? Anyone know what's become of him, I miss his contributions?

I don't accept your contention that Fleet and Lee would have seen something of The Californian if it was 12 miles away. As I have already stated, The Californian was heading NE of Titanic at the relevant time, and only The Californian's stern light would have been seen - but could not as it was outside visible range.

Fleet wasn't in the crows nest on Titanic at 1am.

Are you saying that the two vessels were far enough apart to be outside of each other's visible horizon? If so, that would have had to be a lot further than 12 miles, no?

Genuine question; if Californian's bow was facing approx. NE after stopping (which nobody disputes, afaik), and considering we know where Titanic foundered, wouldn't the latter - regardless of what direction her bow was facing - have seen Californian's starboard sidelight (green) and masthead light, not her stern light? If they had been a mere 12 miles apart?

Correct, Fleet saw the lights of the 'mystery ship' (Mount Temple?) whilst on deck of the foundering Titanic after his shift ended at 00:23. Apologies for not being more "precise".

Best New Year wishes to all here on ET.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

It was undoubtedly Titanic's socket signals that messrs Stone and Gibson were witnessing. As far as a "phantom ship" is concerned, I do not believe that was Titanic

I think most people believe that the lights seen by the Titanic were those of the Californian and vice versa; also, the rockets seen by Stone and Gibson came from the Titanic. There was no such thing as a "Phantom ship".

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Best New Year wishes to all here on ET.

Same to you Steven and everyone else here on ET.