Taner, a few points to address in your posts.
It must have been a matter of professional interest, if not anything else, for Lord to see how Titanic handled the situation that had stopped his ship for the night.
I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Are you suggesting he was aware that the ship under observation was the
Titanic? We don't know that Lord was even aware that the
Californian had visual contact with the
Titanic - if indeed it did. The evidence suggests (e.g. Groves' testimony) that Lord believed the ship seen before he left the bridge was a tramp steamer.
There's no evidence that Lord showed any interest in what the
Titanic's movements might be.
but try and assess the situation from an objective perspective
People are trying to be objective in this thread - they're working from evidence, not conjecture that has no support in the material we have.
Lord was in a bizarre "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. He must have known that he was in the wrong place in the wrong time and he was going to have trouble no matter which course of action he chose.
This pre-supposes that Lord was fully cognizant of what was going on, and consciously chose to ignore what was happening. Some writers have questioned whether the Bridge crew were imperative enough in relaying the information about the rockets and the ship they were morsing to him (e.g. Senan Molony). Other writers contend that he must have been fully aware of what was happening, or at least aware of the possibility of what the rockets signified. The point has not been resolved to the satisfaction of all, and it's yet another highly contentious point in this debate.
I hope you'll understand my next suggestion is intended constructively, in order to assist others who are following this debate. Your points are broken up over a dozen posts in succession - from a communications point of view, this disrupts the flow of your arguments and makes it less easy to read and absorb. I understand that in addressing different posts from different people you may choose a seperate post to respond to each, and that's fine (indeed, in some instances it makes sense), but the above sequence of posts could all be encompassed in one or two responses rather than broken up.
Samuel, thanks for those comments and further points on the nature of the
Titanic/
Californian exchange, which has often been misinterpreted and misrepresented. The idea that Lord and Evans abandoned the
Titanic to her fate in a fit of pique is not one supported by what we know of the circumstances around this incident.
The matter of Phillips cutting off Evans has never been in doubt (even though the context and implications of it have been debated and re-evaluated from time to time), nor has it been questioned in this thread - it was the scenario Taner extrapolated from this incident that is under discussion.
