The californian inquiry

[Paul Lee]

Actually, Lord said "Thats not Titanic. She's (meaning the vessel that he saw) a vessel close to us in size".

Titanic seemed to turn out her lights because of her turn after the collision. Have a look at my website for my version of things:

http://www.btinternet.com/~dr_paul_lee/TitanCalif2.htm

Paul

 

[taner tanriover]

8114. You remember Sunday, the 14th? - Yes.

8115. Was your watch from 8 p.m. till midnight? - Yes.

8116. And we know your steamer stopped because she got among the ice? - Yes.

8117. At 10.26 was it? - Yes, at 10.26.

8118. And you had had a double look-out. We have heard about that and I will not ask you again? - Yes, a double look-out.

8119. Since about 6? - Since about 6.

8120. Had you seen any icebergs, you yourself, in the afternoon? - Yes.

8121. Where did you see them? - About 5 miles to the southward of us.

How could these people [Lord et al] have led us to believe that they were not so much as the least bit "curious" to see how this legendary Titanic would go about manoeuvring [or would she?]her way thru the same ice that had stopped -what must have been a much more agile- Californian?
When they also can't deny that they knew that famous ship was due there anytime now?

Michael, you are saying they may not have been so interested. I find this theory unlikely. Sailors in 1912 entirely uninterested in the Titanic? Oh well it's just a big passenger ship so what?

 

[Paul Lee]

Sounds like Robin Gardiner! Come up with a theory - don't let the facts get in the way!

Paul

 

[Lee Gilliland]

Taner, please remember at this point there was nothing "legendary" about the Titanic - she was just another ship on a maiden cruise. She only became important after she sank. Much of the woulda-coulda-shoulda here rests on that point - and includes the entire Californian controversy.

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo Taner,

Since Lord sent wireless messages warning Titanic about the ice, it is safe to conclude that he was [at some point(s) in time on that 14 April 1912, at least] concerned about the welfare of the great ship. Otherwise why bother telling them about the ice, right?

You should go back and re-read the testimony on this point - you seem to be under the impression that Lord was only concerned about sending a specific message to the Titanic. Earlier he had sent a similar message to the Antillian:

Senator SMITH. What time did you communicate with the Titanic?

Mr. EVANS. In the afternoon, sir. I was sending a message to the Antillian, of our line. I was sending an ice report, handed in by the skipper, sir. I was sending to the Antillian and the Titanic called me up and we exchanged signals, exchanged an official T.R. We call it a T.R. when a ship gets in communication with another. I said, "Here is a message; an ice report." He said, "It's all right, old man." He said. "I heard you send to the Antillian." He said, "Bi." That is an expression used among ourselves.

The exchange with the Titanic was described as follows:

Mr. EVANS. On the 14th, sir, the same evening, New York time, that is. I went outside of my room just before that, about five minutes before that and we were stopped, and I went to the captain and I asked him if there was anything the matter. The captain told me he was going to stop because of the ice, and the captain asked me if I had any boats, and I said the Titanic. He said "Better advise him we are surrounded by ice and stopped." So I went to my cabin, and at 9.05 New York time I called him up. I said "Say, old man, we are stopped and surrounded by ice." He turned around and said "Shut up, shut up, I am busy; I am working Cape Race," and at that I jammed him.

Senator SMITH. What do you mean by that?

Mr. EVANS. By jamming we mean when somebody is sending a message to somebody else and you start to send at the same time, you jam him. He does not get his message. I was stronger than Cape Race. Therefore my signals came in with a bang, and he could read me and he could not read Cape Race.

The words came as a response to the report from Evans that he was listening in on the Titanic's messages - not because of any specific fascination with the ship. If Evans had said he 'had' the Adriatic, I believe the response would have been the same.

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

The problem with this is that it contradicts the known accounts. You can come up with any conjectural hypothetical scenario you like, but unless you have some evidence to support it, you're not likely to win many supporters for it. Wireless operators often had exchanges of the same nature as that between Phillips and Evans - and, as Evans recognised, Phillips had reason to cut Evans off.

The idea that Lord would anticipate not only that the Titanic would founder, but to pre-determine that he would do nothing to assist, flies in the face of both maritime law and practice. To consciously make such a decision - and convey it to the wireless operator - was to endanger his own career and reputation.

Many a Titanic survivor's account cites the presence of a small ship [which most historians have to conclude was Californian.] How can people on Titanic see the tiny Californian but people on Californian fail to see the mighty Titanic?

Actually, this point - like so many others - is contentious. As some witnesses suggest the ship seen from the Titanic moved, it has been suggested by some writers that there was a third ship. You may want to re-read some of the material suggested in this thread, and go back over past debates on this board to see what arguments have been made for and against this scenario.

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.

What I said was, there was no evidence that Lord showed any interest in what the Titanic's movements might be. When he was told that the wireless operator was monitoring her, he passed on a warning - just as he had earlier passed on one to the Antillian. Groves reported that he didn't believe that the ship they saw was the Titanic at all.

The Titanic may have interested him in a more general sense, but not to the degree you suggest. These ships were not the space shuttles of their day - Titanic was merely one in a procession of ships of ever-increasing size. I have a copy of a letter from one of her officers that notes this fact. She wasn't even the first in her class - that was the Olympic. That she was the new WSL liner on her Maiden Voyage would have been of professional note, but not of obsessive interest.

At any rate, given that Lord was convinced the ship he was viewing was 'something like ourselves,' (as per Paul's comments), it is doubtful that he was aware that the ship reported firing rockets was the Titanic.

How could these people [Lord et al] have led us to believe that they were not so much as the least bit "curious" to see how this legendary Titanic would go about manoeuvring [or would she?]her way thru the same ice that had stopped -what must have been a much more agile- Californian?

Given at least five miles distance, what do you think they expected to see? No one seriously expected her to sink. Even assuming she passed within visual range - and they couldn't be sure of that - there was nothing to see beyond possibly her lights. If she stopped or proceeded, it wasn't a matter of such consuming interest that the Captain and watch were going to spend the night Titanic watching. Lord turned in at any rate. If Titanic went past at a mile or two in a blaze of lights, they would no doubt have observed her with curiousity. If not - well, no big deal.

 

[Paul Lee]

I really wish there was an easy way to unsubscribe myself from ******** threads like this one.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

It is so easy to take a little testimony and draw wrong conclusions from it. Association of events like the time the Titanic struck the berg with the time Groves said he saw the ship put out her lights, both being at 11:40 PM, immediately suggests these were the same event. However, when one digs deeper into the situation on both ships one finds that these were not the same time. 11:40 PM Californian time came about 11 minutes after 11:40 PM Titanic time on the night of April 14. At the time of collision, 11:40 PM Titanic time, 3/O Groves was going down to the lower bridge to inform Capt. Lord of an approaching vessel coming up abaft their beam. This corresponded to about 11:30 PM Californian time. When Capt. Lord came up onto the upper deck about 11:45 PM, he looked at the other vessel and came to the conclusion that it did not appear to be a passenger steamer, but a medium sized vessel like the Californian. It also appeared that she had stopped for the night for exactly the same reason the Californian stopped for the night.

One has to keep in mind that what was seen on both ships that night were lights of another ship. Although trained observers on both vessels saw various navigational and deck lights, they really had no way to accurately estimate distance or pointing angles. That had no way to measure how high a mast light was above the horizon. There was no visible horizon. All guesses of distance were just that, guesses, based on brightness of lights, and relative separation of lights. There was no way to actually measure anything at night without a solid frame of reference. Estimates of distances and shapes can be, and usually are, way off.

Regarding what Lord expected to see, it certainly was not the Titanic. The Californian was heading for Boston while the Titanic was heading to NY. Different track lines that should have been about 17-18 miles apart at 50°W longitude. Lord was certain that the ship he was looking at was not a passenger ship, and that too was the opinion of 2/O Stone and the Apprentice Gibson. On the Titanic, 2/O Lightoller was just as certain that those lights 2 points off his port bow was a sailing ship, not a steamer (BOT 13894). And so too for 3/O Pitman (BOT 15061). So what you see may not be what you think.

Now I believe I can prove that what these ships saw that night was in fact each other. However, that was not obvious to those on these respective vessels. To me, the big mistake the Stanley Lord made was not waking up Evans to see if he could find out what was really going on with those rockets. He appeared to be satisfied with trying to contact the observed vessel with their Morse lamp, and unfortunately, that was not successful. When asked why he thought the steamer was sending up rockets, Lord said that it might be in "acknowledgement" of their attempt to establish communication (via Morse lamp), and that a "good many steamers do not use the Morse lamp." He mentioned that there are company signals that "resemble rockets." He also said if they were distress signals the officer of the watch (2/O Stone) would have told him that. But he also said that Stone did not know if they were distress signals or company signals. And since he believed the ship was only 5 miles away, he expected him to hear the sound of any distress signals, which of course was not heard, so nothing else was done except keep on Morsing and report if a reply comes or anything changes.

Keep in mind that the observed ship appeared to have stopped about 11:40 PM or so. It was about an hour later that the 1st rocket went up. How can a ship that was not moving be in danger? The ship had obviously stopped for night.

Seeing the Titanic or not is not the issue. I do not understand why Lord chose to take no further action other than asking Stone to send Gibson down should the situation change. As Gibson said about a remark that Stone had made: "A ship does not fire up rockets for nothing."

 

[Cornelius Thiessen]

Hmmm, I posted about an hour ago and it seems to have disappeared

: I recall LOrd asking his crew several times what color the rockets were....my question is would Lord have done things differently had they been say red green or blue rockets? Did different color rockets signify different things?

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo Cornelius -

You may want to go into the archives to see extensive discussions about rockets, their colours and the significance of these colours (or lack thereof!). While different colours in certain sequences could be used for communication purposes other than distress, regulations specified that distress rockets could be of any colour fired at intervals.

Great post, Sam - you covered a lot of ground.

 

[taner tanriover]

Thx for your posts everybody.
I understand how my theory does not correspond with what has come to be known as "solid facts" about the Californian's role and position.
However, if I am the least bit correct in my assumptions, you understand this would mean that all statements given by the crew of California were oral fiction. Californian may [nay, must!] have been lying about her precise location, and the course of action taken.
That the clock on the 2 ships were 10 minutes out of synch is another important point.
I believe there was no other ship. It was all Titanic vs Californian. An unscheduled and unconventional confrontation of good and evil. Messages regarding safety were ignored bothways. In the name of personal and/or commercial interests. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Inger Sheil]

However, if I am the least bit correct in my assumptions, you understand this would mean that all statements given by the crew of California were oral fiction

All statements? Phew - that's a bit of an assertion

Taner, by all means - if you can demonstrate that your ideas are correct with evidence rather than conjectural theorising, people will be very interested.

An unscheduled and unconventional confrontation of good and evil.

I'm generally very cautious about reductive polarities such as this. Human nature and actions are rarely - if ever - so black and white. I doubt either ship or crew could be realistically characterised as 'good' or 'evil', and as researchers seeking to understand the sequence of events perhaps it's better for us to move away from such reductive terms.

 

[taner tanriover]

yes, I guess that's the point, Inger! The crews/human actions involved were not black vs white but grey vs darker grey! That's what makes it difficult for OTHER people to understand me. When I understand what I'm saying, no problem.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>How could these people [Lord et al] have led us to believe that they were not so much as the least bit "curious" to see how this legendary Titanic would go about manoeuvring [or would she?]her way thru the same ice that had stopped -what must have been a much more agile- Californian? <<

When they also can't deny that they knew that famous ship was due there anytime now?<<

What famous ship? As Inger pointed out, Titanic was the second one in her class and her departure on her maiden voyage drew the usual muted response. The lead ship is the one that tends to grab the headlines. The sisters tend to get short shrift.

And how would they know that what the saw was the Titanic? She was hardly the only large passenger steamer on the North Atlantic run. The Germans had some big ones and both the Lusitania and Mauritania had been in regular service for several years. When you're out on the sea at night, all you actually see are the lights displayed and little else. So long as there was no danger of collision, there was little reason to be concerned with who you were looking at. They knew she was out there, but had no way of really knowing how close.

>>Michael, you are saying they may not have been so interested. I find this theory unlikely. Sailors in 1912 entirely uninterested in the Titanic? Oh well it's just a big passenger ship so what?<<

That was exactly the attitude. If the crew of the Californian was interested in sightseeing, you would think that they would make an especial effort to lose with the vessel they saw and this didn't happen. They stopped for the night on account of the ice, and anyone not on duty was in their bunks trying to catch some sorely needed sleep. As a sailor myself, I understand this.

>>However, if I am the least bit correct in my assumptions, you understand this would mean that all statements given by the crew of California were oral fiction.<<

Absent your assumptions, a lot of researchers on both sides have been making claims like that for years anyway.

>>Californian may [nay, must!] have been lying about her precise location, and the course of action taken.<<

Prove it. The position they believed they were at was calculated long befor the Titanic came cruising over the horizon and entered in the log. It may have been wrong and probably was, but it would have been an honest error with no melicious intent.

>>That the clock on the 2 ships were 10 minutes out of synch is another important point.<<

Only in haggling over the details. In the overall scheme of things, what's relevant is that Californian observed the socket signals being fired and failed to act as proactively as they should have.

>>I believe there was no other ship. It was all Titanic vs Californian.<<

And some would agree with you. I'm not buying into this in toto but hypothetical mystery ships notwithstanding, the real issue is still the Californian's failure to act. The accountability of any other players in this game...if any were present...is a seperate issue.

>>An unscheduled and unconventional confrontation of good and evil.<<

Disagree. Whatever the Californian's errors, they were not made with any sort of melevolant intent.

>>Messages regarding safety were ignored bothways.<<

Not true. Messages were recieved and even acted on. Not adaquately in Titanic's case as the twisted wreckage on the bottom bears out, but they were recieved, noted, and acted on. As for Californian, she was stopped for the night on account of the ice that she nearly ran over. They were lucky only to lose their log line.

>>In the name of personal and/or commercial interests. Makes perfect sense.<<

In regards to what?

The exchange between Californian and Titanic amounted to nothing more then "Shut up, shut up, am working Cape Race" after which Californian signed off and the single operator turned in for the night. That's it. It just wasn't a big deal.

 

[taner tanriover]

Like take some villians from the movie Titanic:

- What a pitch black character Ismay is painted as: he orders the boat to go fast, he's vain, pompous, snobby, ignorant, stupid AND a coward.
- Cal's manservant/assistant/butler isn't a great fellow either.
- but what of Rose, Jack, Andrews, Cpt. Smith etc? Surely they weren't what I'd call 100% white.

 

[taner tanriover]

I just came back from that point in time in my XT-344 time/space module. Listened into the conversations on the Californian. They knew about Titanic. They were lying. I hope that's plenty proof already.

Seriously tho,
I'm mainly going by what I'd have done in Lord's position. Perhaps my version which suggests that he knew about the aborted wireless exchange and his not helping was a direct retaliation or consequence is probly quite far-fetched. But that he and Evans just "happened to" call it a night at that point in time and the Groves statement doesn't sound too convincing for my standards point out [constitute evidence if not proof] that they were not 100% honest about their version of events.
How could it have not been a matter of professional interest for Stanley Lord to see how Smith handled the ice? After all, this guy must have dreamt about commanding his own Titanic one day. Well..
At least that's what I would have done.