Stanley Lord guilty as charged

[Samuel Halpern]

Anyone know what's become of him, [Jim Currie]?

The last time I interacted with him was on a Facebook page just weeks ago. He participates once in a while, usually to stir things up, on various Titanic related FB sites. The problem he, I and many others have with FB (and other forms of social media) is that you are dealing with many ignorant (putting it mildly) people who get everything they know from these sites through posts that come from anyone who wants to post just about anything that they feel like posting, real or imagined. Usually, it's the same old stuff, over and over and over again.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

He participates once in a while, usually to stir things up.

Yes, when Ol' Jim was around here it was usually NOT just On A Sea Of Glass

 

[Samuel Halpern]

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?

No Steven, that's not what he's saying. He's pointing out that Californian was facing a direction at that time where her mast lights and sidelights were shut out to Titanic, while only her stern light would have been visible very dim, low down, motionless, and unnoticed on the horizon at that distance. When her lights became noticed was when Californian swung enough around to starboard (from facing NE to ENE) that those lights opened up to Titanic, and suddenly what looked like a mast light to the naked eye on Titanic was called out. I show this in my book that has been referred to here.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

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".

It wasn't Mount Temple because Mount Temple was nowhere near Titanic when Titanic was still afloat. The Mount Temple thing is made up nonsense Steve. See https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/attachments/abandoning_the_titanic-pdf.116987/.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Correct, Fleet saw the lights of the 'mystery ship' (Mount Temple?)

Hi Steven, definitely not!

If you were to follow Sam’s reconstruction of the movements of the Mount Temple, they accord with Captain Moore’s account in testimony. And his Marconi radio operator John Durrant and his meticulous ‘Process Verbal’ record, and his testimony to both Inquiries.

Fleet could never have seen the Mount Temple at any time that night as it was far far too away and way beyond visible range, plus was at all times to the west of the ice field.

Sam has similarly “debunked” Captain Lord’s own accusations against the Almerian of his own Line later in 1912 after the British Inquiry. By the most meticulous research Sam has undertaken.

Happy New Year to you all!

Cheers,
Julian

 

[Arun Vajpey]

If you were to follow Sam’s reconstruction of the movements of the Mount Temple, they accord with Captain Moore’s account in testimony. And his Marconi radio operator John Durrant and his meticulous ‘Process Verbal’ record, and his testimony to both Inquiries. Fleet could never have seen the Mount Temple at any time that night as it was far far too away and way beyond visible range, plus was at all times to the west of the ice field.

Absolutely right. This entire nonexistent 'controversy' was thrust forward by the likes of Jim Currie who would go to any lengths to exonerate Captain Lord and the Californian of any misdemeanor that night. If the Mount Temple had not been around to be accused of being the 'Phantom Ship', they would have suggested De Vliegende Hollander (which would have been more apropriate, anyway )