After years of research into this tragedy I must disagree with this author summations. The trouble I see in this article is the Capt. Lord's story is unreliable. He could not prove his location and his log books could have easily been falsified. Sir James Bisset, the second officer of the Carpathia and Capt, Roston both saw the Californian just a few miles off. Furthermore, when Capt Lord was in the wreck site he claimed that he found nothing. No bodies or wreckage, whereby 5 days later the other ships that traveled through the area did see them and reported back to the Mackay Bennett which was sent to retrieve bodies. If Capt. Charles Groves, then 3rd officer of the Californian, had been lying about Capt. Lord he would have been looked down upon in the later years of his career but yet he made Captain. No, I don't see any honor in Capt. Lord's claims or reported behavior.
This article, whilst an interesting analysis, invalidates itself by the declarative - and wholly unsupported - statement contained therein that the Titanic and the Californian were "10 to 12 miles apart"...if that were so, why wasn't the Californian visible to Titanic's lookouts in the crow's nest, or why wasn't the deafening explosion of Titanic's rockets not clearly heard by just about everyone on board Californian?