The californian inquiry

[taner tanriover]

and maybe he had to watch his dream sink
along with the Titanic

and couldn't do a thing about it.

 

[taner tanriover]

Californian was the boy
who cried Wolf
Wolf was the ice
and Titanic
the public

 

[Inger Sheil]

I'm mainly going by what I'd have done in Lord's position.

Taner, out of curiousity, how much experience do you have as a ship's master? Or, barring that, how much research have you done into Lord's life, character and his historical and professional milieau?

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.

No, your feelings that the statements by Evans, Lord and Groves are untrustworthy don't constitute evidence - let alone proof. Those men couldn't keep a 24 hour watch and had to turn in and some point! We don't have any reason to believe that Lord was even aware of the unsuccessful transmition of the message, let that he reached a determination to 'retaliate' by not answering the Titanic's rockets. Your reading of this evidence is highly subjective interpretation, and involves disregarding what the testimony actually says in favour of an entirely hypothetical alternative scenario.

How could it have not been a matter of professional interest for Stanley Lord to see how Smith handled the ice?

Once again - what exactly do you think Lord expected to 'see'? And how was he going to 'see' it?

 

[taner tanriover]

scenario:
Cpt. Lord is indeed up, awake and curious as to see what Titanic will be doing at 11:30 [local time], and looking in that direction he can see a massive steamer coming into the ice-field at full-speed. "Curses! She's gonna hit!" and what do you know surprise surprise sinking by the bow please help.

 

[taner tanriover]

Would this [my scenario unfolding] not have warranted a philosophical discussion of Titanic proportions [no pun intended] as to whether or not they should help, since -unlike Carpathia- they happened to KNOW for a fact that this disaster could have been avoided had it not been for their ignored warnings.

 

[taner tanriover]

Could Lord not have been justified in thinking: "now had that ship been in my command she could not have come sailing right into the ice field at that speed as if there's an emergency. Because I would have acted on the ice warnings and slowed her right down."

 

[Inger Sheil]

Taner, again - what on earth do you think Lord was expecting to see in your hypothetical Titanic watching scenario? Given the distances between the vessels? The evidence we have is that Lord believed the ship they saw before he turned in was not the Titanic at all, so he didn't really expect to be getting front row seats to anything.

Once you discard what eyewitnesses said and start conjuring up hypothetical scenarios that contradict what evidence we have, you're on very, very dangerous methodological ground. You can trot off in any direction you like - suggest that Lord didn't want to act because he was drunk, or because he and Smith were rivals for the affections of a girl in London.

Even when we use inference to try and fill in gaps in the record of events we have to be conscious that we're treading on potentially hazardous ground. But when we rely on conjecture about not only motives but also events, and in formulating that conjecture we proceed on the assumption that those involved were all lying, we're really heading out on a very shaky limb indeed.

 

[taner tanriover]

"Taner, again - what on earth do you think Lord was expecting to see in your hypothetical Titanic watching scenario? Given the distances between the vessels? The evidence we have is that Lord believed the ship they saw before he turned in was not the Titanic at all, so he didn't really expect to be getting front row seats to anything."

Yes, but if he was lying as I suspect he was, we can expect the reported distance to be largely exaggerated, Lord, due to the unique position he found himself in relation to the Titanic disaster, simply couldn't have afforded to make an admission to the effect that he was well aware of Titanic's presence and demise in close proximity to his vessel.

 

[Inger Sheil]

Yes, but if he was lying as I suspect he was, we can expect the reported distance to be largely exaggerated, Lord, due to the unique position he found himself in relation to the Titanic disaster, simply couldn't have afforded to make an admission to the effect that he was well aware of Titanic's presence and demise in close proximity to his vessel.

Taner, you're basing everything on an assumption that the Californian's crew were lying on any point that contradicts your theories. You're fitting the evidence to fit your theory rather than vice-versa - not good practice.

How close do you think the ships were exactly, and on what do you base this calculation?

 

[taner tanriover]

I'm not accusing Cpt. Lord of not helping Titanic. I'm only accusing him of lying. And trying to help others understand why he had to lie about the matter.
If Californian was indeed as close as some of Lord's "critics" claim [i.e. 3-4 miles from the wreck] and since Titanic was something like a floating city, there would have been no way for them not to have noticed the ordeal she was going through.

 

[taner tanriover]

I don't think I can provide any hard evidence that places the two ships on exactly where they were at 11:40 on 14 April 1912. I understand historians' estimates range anywhere from 3 to 16 miles apart. Let's say 8 miles. I live in a city built on fairly flat land [Adelaide] that streches in most directions for miles at end. When I'm driving into the city from suburbs do I have much difficulty spotting tall buildings [which I understand were quite smaller than Titanic was, especially if it's night and they are brightly lit?] from 8 miles away? No.

 

[taner tanriover]

I don't know.
Let's build exact replicas of Titanic and Californian. Place them on their reported positions and see if they are visible to one another at night I guess?

 

[Brendon Gardner]

I think I must have missed the bit where Elvis turned up on the bridge of the Californian for a sing-a-long which distracted them from reading the exact contents of the morse signals from the Titanic...

I'm far from a defender of Captain Lord but this thread takes the cake really

 

[taner tanriover]

"you're basing everything on an assumption that the Californian's crew were lying on any point that contradicts your theories. You're fitting the evidence to fit your theory rather than vice-versa - not good practice."

but my theory also stems from the body of evidence surrounding the disaster [discounting Lord's version] and explains why Lord's version of events were MEANT TO contradict my thinking.
By that same token, what evidence do we have [other than the accounts of Californian's crew] that my version is entirely inaccurate and they were OBLIVIOUS to what was happening up until 4 or something?

 

[taner tanriover]

and let's face it..

these people didn't have just good
but excellent reasons to be lying