The californian inquiry

[taner tanriover]

I find that while it is, in hypermodern retrospect, perfectly understandable how at the same time Cpt. Lord deliberately avoided zooming in on the disaster that was happening within sight, he also had to fabricate his polished version of events to further justify his adopted position. Or, in other words, unjustify it!

 

[taner tanriover]

Kyrila
From what I read of his work, Senan Molony doesn't sound like some one to wildly disaggree with me on this. But I'll try to get a copy of that book and read some more.

 

[taner tanriover]

"There's no evidence that Lord showed any interest in what the Titanic's movements might be."

People were interested in Titanic in those days. Even people who weren't seamen or the like. It was the Apollo Space Program for 1912!

 

[taner tanriover]

Could it be considered a serious crime that Lord failed to assist Titanic?
The fact is, it was considered thus by many people who looked at the disaster only from a layman's perspective. And Lord also knew it was going to be. So he contrived and circulated a story that made his failure to take action appear excusable to his accusers. He claimed he couldn't have helped because he didn't know what was going on. When in reality he must have known what was going on but couldn't have helped.

 

[taner tanriover]

it seems to me that

that SOS from Titanic was

for Rostron: a chance to be a hero
for Lord: a chance to DIE a hero

 

[Lee Gilliland]

Taner, don't worry about it, one of the things you learn in a forum situation is to assume people never mean things nastily, so I got stiff about manners to push us both to a higher plain of discussion - guess it's the schoolmarm in me.

Anyway, to return to the subject - have you read all the previous threads on this subject here at ET? You may find most of the discussions you are interested in there, as the subject has been covered rather extensively - in fact, that's one of the reasons I made my original comment, between Harrison's and Reade's books and this forum, it's hard to find an aspect of the Californian controversy that hasn't been covered extensively.

 

[taner tanriover]

Inger: "The idea that Lord and Evans had predetermined that they would allow the Titanic to sink should she strike ice suggests a level of moral depravity that I don't think even Lord's strongest detractors have suggested before. This is purely conjectural, as there isn't the slightest evidence that Lord was even aware of the unsuccessful attempt to warn the ship about ice."

But any such evidence could not have existed under the circumstances. Evans later said he was not put off by the "shut up" remark. Could he have said "yes, I was actually" if he was indeed concealing what I suspect was the "awful" truth of the situation?

My hypothetical version of events:

11:00 Californian message cut off
11:11 Evans tells Lord about it
11:11 LORD: [jokingly, I would presume] "Ya well, I'll be damned if I help them!"
0:24 Lord is alerted to the situation
0:25-2:56 Discussions, mainly about should they go help, how bad the suction from Titanic would be, how much assistance they could offer, how big a risk they'd be taking etc.
2:56-4:14 Synchronising their "we don't know nothing" stories

and the rest is history

 

[Paul Lee]

This has to be a troll, surely?

Paul

 

[taner tanriover]

Lee,
thx for understanding.
I did look into the evidence available about California a bit but as you pointed out, certain things are impossible to ascertain by merely looking at the data about Californian at hand. "Raw" data, so to speak.
Rather, I am trying to explain what happened in terms of an all comprehensive order in chaos theory I'm building up to, I guess.

When I consider all the evidence at hand I feel Californian's version of events just don't compute. If you will.

 

[taner tanriover]

Inger: "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."

I mean,
How could Stanley Lord not have been interested in Titanic? I reckon he was. It has to do with his profession, with his life. He'd have been interested in Titanic alright. Just like authors are interested in books. And junkies in junk.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>There is hard evidence to conclude that Californian was interested in the fate of the Titanic as late as 11pm that night.<<

No there isn't, nor would any such reason exist at that time as the Titanic wouldn't have her encounter with that iceberg for at least another 40 minutes.

>>Now, these people [i.e. the crew of Californian and Lord] how often did they get a chance to see a spectacular work of human labor, the ultimate word in engineering, knock-your-socks-off, state-of-the-art hi-tech piece of machinery like Titanic?<<

A lot more often then you might think. That's the advantage in having the worlds oceans as your stamping ground. You see all kinds of wonderful things. And really, why should they be obsessed with Titanic in any event? Large steamers had been around for some time and while Titanic was the largest, ever larger vessels were on the way.

I'd deal with the rest of your numerous posts but I really don't have the time right now. At first glance, I can tell that you have a very poor understanding of these particular events and you really need to do some in depth research befor we go on with this. You can start by going strieght to The Inquiry Transcripts themselves and start hitting the testimony of the people involved. For webside research and opinion, check out the following:

All At Sea With Dave Gittins
Titanic & Californian Mainpage
George Behe's Titanic Tidbits

You may also want to check out Leslie Harrison's "A Titanic Myth", Leslie Reade's "The Ship That Stood Still", and Senan Molony's "A Ship Accused" as well as the following articles posted in ET Research Articles on the topic;

"The Middle Watch" by Senan Molony
"Mystery Ship Made Simple" by Senan Molony
"Titanic's Rockets" By Senan Molony
"The Californian Incident, A Reality Check" by Tracy Smith, Michael H. Standart & Captain Erik D. Wood

Be mindful of the fact that even the best of all the books and websources is not without their particular bias.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Addendum: another book to read would be Peter Padfield's "The Titanic and the Californian."

 

[Paul Lee]

Quote:
Addendum: another book to read would be Peter Padfield's "The Titanic and the Californian."

If you can get hold of it, that is.

Paul

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>If you can get hold of it, that is.<<

Interlibrary loan is a good way. Used booksellors is another way. Curiously enough, I found this one easier to get a hold of then Reade's work.

 

[taner tanriover]

from British Wreck Commission Inquiry

testimony of Groves

8210. And you said, "It is"? - Yes.

8211. Now you said something about the lights going out; what was it? - Well he said to me, "It does not look like a passenger steamer." I said, "Well, she put her lights out at 11.40" - a few minutes ago that was.

8212. Then had she put her lights out before the captain came on the bridge? - Yes, my Lord.

8213. When did she put her lights out? - At 11.40.

8214. And you told the captain this, did you? - Yes.

8215. What did he say to that; did he say anything? - When I remarked about the passenger steamer he said: "The only passenger steamer near us is the 'Titanic.'"

8216. He said that, did he? - Yes, my Lord.

8217. (Mr. Rowlatt.) What makes you fix the time 11.40 for her lights going out? - Because that is the time we struck one bell to call the middle watch.

8218. Do you remember that bell was struck at that time? - Most certainly.

8219. Did the steamer continue on her course after that? - No, not so far as I could see.

8220. She stopped? - She stopped.

8221. Was that at the time when her lights appeared to go out? - That was at the time that her lights appeared to go out.

8222. Were the lights you saw on her port side or her starboard side? - Port side.

8223. I want to ask you a question. Supposing the steamer whose lights you saw turned two points to port at 11.40, would that account to you for her lights ceasing to be visible to you? - I quite think it would.

The Commissioner: Mr. Rowlatt, at 11.40 the engines were stopped on the "Titanic."

---

Why should this ship [which according to Lord himself could have been no other than the big T] have turned off its lights at 11:40 pm exactly? And she stopped at that time, Groves also says. Did Titanic turn off her lights after [or on] the collision? Even temporarily? Did she INSTANTLY have a list that can account for the reported sudden disappearance of the lights? I really don't think so.
Was this Groves hiding something? I quite think he was.