David G. Brown
RIP
Tracy-- I appreciate your kind words about my book.
-- David G. Brown
-- David G. Brown
A Trapped Captain
- Thread starter Erik Wood
- Start date
Beverly J. Crowder
Member
Dear Mr Brown,
I concur with you... I believe that Capt. Lord should have logged the events as they unfolded and covered his butt!
Even if he could have gotten out of the ice safely, would he have been there in time to even pluck some from the water???
With the water as cold as it was, how long do you think many would have survived in it before he got there?
It is too late to go back now and repeat history.
But I also believe that making Capt. Lord a scapegoat for a number of factors that lead to the sinking of Titanic a terrible injustice.
Beverly
I concur with you... I believe that Capt. Lord should have logged the events as they unfolded and covered his butt!
Even if he could have gotten out of the ice safely, would he have been there in time to even pluck some from the water???
With the water as cold as it was, how long do you think many would have survived in it before he got there?
It is too late to go back now and repeat history.
But I also believe that making Capt. Lord a scapegoat for a number of factors that lead to the sinking of Titanic a terrible injustice.
Beverly
Fiona Nitschke
Member
Hello Erik,
The only place I have seen a distance given for the Rappahannock/Titanic encounter was on the Cameron CD ROM. Unfortunately my computer's CD ROM drive is kaput so I can't check on Cameron's source for this. Marcus doesn't give a distance, and neither do any of the others I've checked recently. Is the Cameron CD where you got the '10 miles' from? Is there information on where that figure came from?
Hello Kellie,
Last I read the MAIB report on the Reappraisal of Evidence Relating to SS Californian I can't say that I thought it exonerated Lord at all. The best interpretion I got was 'not proven' with a bit more blame flung at Stone - still a mighty tin can to have tied to your tail.
From the Report's Concluding Comments:
I completely agree with the last bit.
Cheers,
Fiona
The only place I have seen a distance given for the Rappahannock/Titanic encounter was on the Cameron CD ROM. Unfortunately my computer's CD ROM drive is kaput so I can't check on Cameron's source for this. Marcus doesn't give a distance, and neither do any of the others I've checked recently. Is the Cameron CD where you got the '10 miles' from? Is there information on where that figure came from?
Hello Kellie,
Last I read the MAIB report on the Reappraisal of Evidence Relating to SS Californian I can't say that I thought it exonerated Lord at all. The best interpretion I got was 'not proven' with a bit more blame flung at Stone - still a mighty tin can to have tied to your tail.
From the Report's Concluding Comments:
I completely agree with the last bit.
Cheers,
Fiona
Fiona,
I did indeed get that 10 miles from that CD. It isn't the best source but it is a source. I can't find any other that gives me a solid sense of distance between the Rappahanock and Titanic. So I think for now I will stick with that 10 miles. Still working on this and a couple others. Good to see you back.
Erik
I did indeed get that 10 miles from that CD. It isn't the best source but it is a source. I can't find any other that gives me a solid sense of distance between the Rappahanock and Titanic. So I think for now I will stick with that 10 miles. Still working on this and a couple others. Good to see you back.
Erik
Matthew Lips
Member
Hi guys,
Being new to this whole discussion group, let me say what a pleasure it is to read some level-headed appraisals of Capt.Lord.
While leaning towards the anti-Lordite camp myself, I do think that the man has been given a raw deal by his more virulent detractors. I agree that he should have done something than he did (he could hardly have done less), but it's easy to jump to conclusions based on ninety-year-old "evidence!"
If Lord put the interests of his own vessel ahead of everything else, is that a reason to destroy him? Merely because he may have been far more cautious than Rostron does not in itself make Lord the villain of the century.
Hindsight is perfect sight. Rostron is undeniably the hero of the piece, but how differently we would judge him and Lord had the Carpathia blundered into an iceberg and suffered the same fate as the Big T!
Regards,
Matthew L.
Being new to this whole discussion group, let me say what a pleasure it is to read some level-headed appraisals of Capt.Lord.
While leaning towards the anti-Lordite camp myself, I do think that the man has been given a raw deal by his more virulent detractors. I agree that he should have done something than he did (he could hardly have done less), but it's easy to jump to conclusions based on ninety-year-old "evidence!"
If Lord put the interests of his own vessel ahead of everything else, is that a reason to destroy him? Merely because he may have been far more cautious than Rostron does not in itself make Lord the villain of the century.
Hindsight is perfect sight. Rostron is undeniably the hero of the piece, but how differently we would judge him and Lord had the Carpathia blundered into an iceberg and suffered the same fate as the Big T!
Regards,
Matthew L.
Fiona Nitschke
Member
Helloo again Erik,
Have been 'confined to quarters' and was able to (partly) amuse myself by hunting for further references to Rappahannock in my Titanic library. The number of books that don't mention Rappahanock at all is quite surprising. There's no mention in the enquiries either - I even checked using a wildcard search to allow for alternative spellings. Hrm.
So far the only distance given is the 10 miles from Cameron's Titanic Explorer CD ROM. Being a simple trusting soul
I just can't trust it until I know the information's source. I hope to have access to a CD ROM drive in the next few weeks and will see if there are any notes accompanying that information.
Distance aside, I have another question regarding Rappahannock - on what night did the two ships meet? I have now have references to the encounter taking place (or not) on the Saturday night (April 13) and the Sunday night (April 14). Anyone?
Still searching,
F
Have been 'confined to quarters' and was able to (partly) amuse myself by hunting for further references to Rappahannock in my Titanic library. The number of books that don't mention Rappahanock at all is quite surprising. There's no mention in the enquiries either - I even checked using a wildcard search to allow for alternative spellings. Hrm.
So far the only distance given is the 10 miles from Cameron's Titanic Explorer CD ROM. Being a simple trusting soul
Distance aside, I have another question regarding Rappahannock - on what night did the two ships meet? I have now have references to the encounter taking place (or not) on the Saturday night (April 13) and the Sunday night (April 14). Anyone?
Still searching,
F
Jake Peterson
Member
As I've said in other threads, I have to feel sorry for Capt. Lord to some degree, when there were other ships in the region that didn't come to the Titanic's rescue until dawn. In particular, the Mt. Temple, who didn't try to navigate the icefield after spending all that effort to rush to their assistance. I did order that book "Titanic: a centennial reaprisal", so I'll get some more information on both Californian and the Mt. Temple when it arrives. Hope it gets here this week, as it shipped out yesterday afternoon. Local bookstore was out of copies.
Jake Peterson
Member
Does anyone have a link or have the full article of Capt. Stanley Lord's interview when he pulled into port April 18, 1912? Couldn't find it in my local paper while searching the archives.
I'm going to look around the 'net and see what I can find, as well.
I'm going to look around the 'net and see what I can find, as well.
Jim Currie
Member
Hello Jake!
I'm sure I don't need to caution you about newspaper accounts. However, others reading this thread should be very carefull when doing so. They should remember that a newspaper report is not a clinical assessment of the facts. If there's any journalists reading this, I'm sure they can fill you in on that aspect of journalism.
I offer a prime example of where researchers have jumped-in with both feet:
In the early hours of Monday morning, Californian's wireless operator was called by the Chief Officer and told to find out what ship's were around. Within a very short space of time, he had word from 'Mount Temple' and the German ship 'Frankfurt' that Titanic had hit an iceberg and was sinking. Both ships gave him the Titanic distress position.
Evans wrote down the position and gave it to Chief officer Stewart, who took it along to Captain Lord. After he had gone, the wireless operator on the Leyland Liner 'Virginian' under the command of Captain Gamble also contacted Evans and confirmed the news about Titanic.
Up until then , all these wireless mesages had been between ship's operators so were not considered official. Evans knew this and also knew that his own Captain Lord would request an official confirmation i.e. a Captain to Captain confirmation message. Lord would not move his ship on the basis of wireless gossip only. So Evans requested this official message from Captain Gamble.
Meantime, Lord reacted to Chief Officer Stewart's news exactly as Evans had predicted; Lord and Stewart came back to the wireless room to get Evans to obtain the official confirmation. And so, when the two senior officers arrived in the wireless room, Evans had the official confirmation, ready and waiting. Lord did not loose a moment, he had all the proof he needed and immediately set-off in the direction of Titanic's last known position.
The London Times newspaper published a lengthy interview with Captain Gamble of the SS Virginian in which he is quoted as stating:
"Times 22/4/12:
At 5.45 a.m I was in communication with the Leyland liner Californian. She was 17 miles north of the Titanic, and had not heard anything official of the disaster. I sent a Marconigram to her as follows :- 'Titanic struck iceberg, wants assistance urgently, ship sinking, passengers in boats, her position lat. 41.46, long. 50.14'."
Now this was the very first official communication between Captain Gamble and Captain Lord. Before this, it had been operator to operator gossip! Yet, because of the distance '17 miles north of the Titanic', this was pounced upon as clear proof of the initial distance between Californian and Titanic. But is it? How did Gamble get the 17 miles distance?
Only two ways: either as a figure in the body of a message or by calculating it himself from a DR position of Californian given to him.
When Chief Officer Stewart first visited Evans at about 5-40am, he would not be equipped with a DR position for Californian. He merely wished to know what ship's were around and if anyone was in trouble. When he got the first news, he high-tailed it for the bridge. When Evans got the Virginian confirmation, they did not exchange positions. Evans because he didn't have that information and 'Virginian' because she did not give it. Here is the proof of that:
"9107. (The Commissioner.) Yes, but you did not know their [Virginian]position?
- No, my Lord.
The Solicitor-General:
That is what I wanted to know.
So when did Captain Gamble receive Californian's DR position from where he deduced she was 17 miles from Titanic's CQD position?
We know the two ships did eventually exchange positions but when did that happen?
According to Captain Lord, it was at 6-30am, the time Californian cleared the west side of the pack ice. If his DR navigation was reasonably good, Californian would be at 42-02' North, 50-08.5'West at that time. Half an hour earlier, he would be 3miles to the NE x North.
Because of this times newspaper report and because of the notoriety of Captain Lord, researchers have completely ignored the obvious. Even going as far as to say that Captain Lord got his time half an hour wrong! But was he wrong? Back to the 'Times'.
Later in the same newspaper report, Captain Gamble is alleged to have stated:
"“At 6.10am I sent a Marconigram to the Californian :- 'Kindly let me know condition of affairs when you get to Titanic.' She at once replied :- 'Can now see Carpathia taking passengers on board from small boats. Titanic foundered about 2 a.m.' “
Again, researchers pounced on this as proof-positive of Lord's guilt! That he was close enough to see the proceedings.
Again they were too eager in their anxiety to prove blame.
Think! Gamble's first official message to Californian was at 5-45am when Californian was 17 miles away from the target. Yet 25 minutes later, he is getting information that Lord can see Carpathia recovering passengers from the boats?
Californian's people could not have seen this unless they were on the same side of the ice as Carpathia and we know that was sometime between 8-15am and 8-30am. We also know she passed Mount Temple an hour earlier at 7-30am
Logically, when Captain Gamble gave a time of 6-10am for the second message, it was New York time. However the time of his first official communication...5-45am...that could not have been New York time because we know from the PV of Mount Temple, that the first message received by Californian from Virginian was 4-00am New York time..5-55am on Californian. It had to be later than that when Captain Gamble exchanged positions with Californian.
The title of this thread is 'A trapped Captain'. Unfortunately Captain Lord's traps were sometimes of his own making.
Five months after the event, he wrote a letter to the Board of Trade. In it he wrote:
"April 15 about 6:30 am gave my position to S.S. Virginian before I heard where the Titanic sunk,
that also gave me 17 away"
As we have seen, this is wrong! He knew that Titanic had sunk before he was in contact with Virginian.
In all probability, he did give his position to Virginian at about 6-30am ship's time that morning and Californian was 17 miles to the north of the distress position!
Jim C.
I'm sure I don't need to caution you about newspaper accounts. However, others reading this thread should be very carefull when doing so. They should remember that a newspaper report is not a clinical assessment of the facts. If there's any journalists reading this, I'm sure they can fill you in on that aspect of journalism.
I offer a prime example of where researchers have jumped-in with both feet:
In the early hours of Monday morning, Californian's wireless operator was called by the Chief Officer and told to find out what ship's were around. Within a very short space of time, he had word from 'Mount Temple' and the German ship 'Frankfurt' that Titanic had hit an iceberg and was sinking. Both ships gave him the Titanic distress position.
Evans wrote down the position and gave it to Chief officer Stewart, who took it along to Captain Lord. After he had gone, the wireless operator on the Leyland Liner 'Virginian' under the command of Captain Gamble also contacted Evans and confirmed the news about Titanic.
Up until then , all these wireless mesages had been between ship's operators so were not considered official. Evans knew this and also knew that his own Captain Lord would request an official confirmation i.e. a Captain to Captain confirmation message. Lord would not move his ship on the basis of wireless gossip only. So Evans requested this official message from Captain Gamble.
Meantime, Lord reacted to Chief Officer Stewart's news exactly as Evans had predicted; Lord and Stewart came back to the wireless room to get Evans to obtain the official confirmation. And so, when the two senior officers arrived in the wireless room, Evans had the official confirmation, ready and waiting. Lord did not loose a moment, he had all the proof he needed and immediately set-off in the direction of Titanic's last known position.
The London Times newspaper published a lengthy interview with Captain Gamble of the SS Virginian in which he is quoted as stating:
"Times 22/4/12:
At 5.45 a.m I was in communication with the Leyland liner Californian. She was 17 miles north of the Titanic, and had not heard anything official of the disaster. I sent a Marconigram to her as follows :- 'Titanic struck iceberg, wants assistance urgently, ship sinking, passengers in boats, her position lat. 41.46, long. 50.14'."
Now this was the very first official communication between Captain Gamble and Captain Lord. Before this, it had been operator to operator gossip! Yet, because of the distance '17 miles north of the Titanic', this was pounced upon as clear proof of the initial distance between Californian and Titanic. But is it? How did Gamble get the 17 miles distance?
Only two ways: either as a figure in the body of a message or by calculating it himself from a DR position of Californian given to him.
When Chief Officer Stewart first visited Evans at about 5-40am, he would not be equipped with a DR position for Californian. He merely wished to know what ship's were around and if anyone was in trouble. When he got the first news, he high-tailed it for the bridge. When Evans got the Virginian confirmation, they did not exchange positions. Evans because he didn't have that information and 'Virginian' because she did not give it. Here is the proof of that:
"9107. (The Commissioner.) Yes, but you did not know their [Virginian]position?
- No, my Lord.
The Solicitor-General:
That is what I wanted to know.
So when did Captain Gamble receive Californian's DR position from where he deduced she was 17 miles from Titanic's CQD position?
We know the two ships did eventually exchange positions but when did that happen?
According to Captain Lord, it was at 6-30am, the time Californian cleared the west side of the pack ice. If his DR navigation was reasonably good, Californian would be at 42-02' North, 50-08.5'West at that time. Half an hour earlier, he would be 3miles to the NE x North.
Because of this times newspaper report and because of the notoriety of Captain Lord, researchers have completely ignored the obvious. Even going as far as to say that Captain Lord got his time half an hour wrong! But was he wrong? Back to the 'Times'.
Later in the same newspaper report, Captain Gamble is alleged to have stated:
"“At 6.10am I sent a Marconigram to the Californian :- 'Kindly let me know condition of affairs when you get to Titanic.' She at once replied :- 'Can now see Carpathia taking passengers on board from small boats. Titanic foundered about 2 a.m.' “
Again, researchers pounced on this as proof-positive of Lord's guilt! That he was close enough to see the proceedings.
Again they were too eager in their anxiety to prove blame.
Think! Gamble's first official message to Californian was at 5-45am when Californian was 17 miles away from the target. Yet 25 minutes later, he is getting information that Lord can see Carpathia recovering passengers from the boats?
Californian's people could not have seen this unless they were on the same side of the ice as Carpathia and we know that was sometime between 8-15am and 8-30am. We also know she passed Mount Temple an hour earlier at 7-30am
Logically, when Captain Gamble gave a time of 6-10am for the second message, it was New York time. However the time of his first official communication...5-45am...that could not have been New York time because we know from the PV of Mount Temple, that the first message received by Californian from Virginian was 4-00am New York time..5-55am on Californian. It had to be later than that when Captain Gamble exchanged positions with Californian.
The title of this thread is 'A trapped Captain'. Unfortunately Captain Lord's traps were sometimes of his own making.
Five months after the event, he wrote a letter to the Board of Trade. In it he wrote:
"April 15 about 6:30 am gave my position to S.S. Virginian before I heard where the Titanic sunk,
that also gave me 17 away"
As we have seen, this is wrong! He knew that Titanic had sunk before he was in contact with Virginian.
In all probability, he did give his position to Virginian at about 6-30am ship's time that morning and Californian was 17 miles to the north of the distress position!
Jim C.
Jake Peterson
Member
Hi Jim;
Thanks for the read! I'm in the process of reading the chapter on Californian in Halpern's book. This chapter was written by Halpern himself. I see that the line of dialogue "No, this isn't right, you must give me a better position" has this addition added to it: "We do not want to go on a wild goose chase.". This line still, as in Butler's book, does not have a footnote # by it, so I'm still curious as to where it came from? Did it come from the AI/BI inquiries, or from Lord's Affidavit in 1959, or what?
The reason I wanted to have a look at Lord's Apr 18th interview, was because I wanted to confirm whether or not Lord, as claimed by Butler in his book, actually said in the article "At no point did I, at the point of a revolver, order any man in here to write a testament of what they saw"
Thanks for the read! I'm in the process of reading the chapter on Californian in Halpern's book. This chapter was written by Halpern himself. I see that the line of dialogue "No, this isn't right, you must give me a better position" has this addition added to it: "We do not want to go on a wild goose chase.". This line still, as in Butler's book, does not have a footnote # by it, so I'm still curious as to where it came from? Did it come from the AI/BI inquiries, or from Lord's Affidavit in 1959, or what?
The reason I wanted to have a look at Lord's Apr 18th interview, was because I wanted to confirm whether or not Lord, as claimed by Butler in his book, actually said in the article "At no point did I, at the point of a revolver, order any man in here to write a testament of what they saw"
Sandy McLendon
Member
Jake, as a journalist, I'm going to second Jim's caution. Newspaper reporting is one of the very trickiest fields in journalism, because reporters may be assigned to a story on any subject, with little regard for their prior knowledge (or lack thereof), under intense deadline pressure. With the best will in the world, a reporter may not possess enough information to ask the right questions or to spot inaccuracies or lies emanating from interview sources. The best newspapers, such as the New York Times, work to assign reporters who know something about the subject in question, to give them enough time to develop the story properly and to fact-check the result, but this is by no means a universal practice. And even the Times ends up with egg on its face from time to time. It's just the nature of the beast.
Jim Currie
Member
Hello there Jake!
Seek and ye shall find!
This from the UK Inquiry:
"11295. The wireless operator told you?
- No; he did not tell me. The chief officer was delivering the message. I was on the bridge, and he was running backward and forward to the operating room.
I said, "Go back again and find the position as quickly as possible." So he went back, and he came back and said "We have a position here, but it seems a bit doubtful." I said, "You must get me a better position. We do not want to go on a wild goose chase." So in the meantime, I marked off the position from the course given me by the Frankfurt in the message just from one operator to another. I marked that off and headed the ship down there.
Hello there Sandy!
I figured that the 'Times' reporter who filed the Bramble report would have been bogged-down with tid-bits of information... loads of times tied to incidents.
Even the fact that he was a 'Times' Reporter (I just couldn't resist that!) It would have been very hard for him to sort out the difference between EST, Marine New York Time, Local Meant time, Ship's time, partial clock change time etc. And not only that... get them in chronological order!
Jim C.
Seek and ye shall find!
This from the UK Inquiry:
"11295. The wireless operator told you?
- No; he did not tell me. The chief officer was delivering the message. I was on the bridge, and he was running backward and forward to the operating room.
I said, "Go back again and find the position as quickly as possible." So he went back, and he came back and said "We have a position here, but it seems a bit doubtful." I said, "You must get me a better position. We do not want to go on a wild goose chase." So in the meantime, I marked off the position from the course given me by the Frankfurt in the message just from one operator to another. I marked that off and headed the ship down there.
Hello there Sandy!
I figured that the 'Times' reporter who filed the Bramble report would have been bogged-down with tid-bits of information... loads of times tied to incidents.
Even the fact that he was a 'Times' Reporter (I just couldn't resist that!) It would have been very hard for him to sort out the difference between EST, Marine New York Time, Local Meant time, Ship's time, partial clock change time etc. And not only that... get them in chronological order!
Jim C.
Scott Mills
Member
I have always been curious as to what motivation the crew of Californian had to lie. She was carrying no passengers and if they were as close to Titanic that night as some argue, then the events as seen that night would be much more different than the crew describes--like rockets going up to a very low height in relation to the ship they saw.
So I would understand that in the morning when you discovered Titanic had foundered, you'd be inclined to lie, but why would you admit to seeing rockets at all? Seems to me that you'd much more inclined to say "I saw nothing."
Also the behaviour of Californian in the morning wasn't that of the guilty. They were authentically surprised and took great risk loosing through ice at full speed to get to Titanics reported position. Seems to me if they were that close to the sinking Titanic they would have known exactly what happened, or if not figured it out pretty quick, and would not have put their ship at great risk to get to the SOS position.
Incidentally (I do not mean to sound like a broken record or to suggest I am positive Mount Temple was the guilty party) the only ship whose behavior was odd in the morning was Mount Temple. First she reported Titanic sunk early in the morning when everyone, including Carpathia was still operating on the assumption Titanic was still floating but not transmitting. Second she stopped dead and watched other ships during the first part of the day go the wrong direction through the ice (since Moore says he was at the SOS position and knew there was no ship or wreckage there) without correcting then or transmitting at all. Third, Mount Temple did not fire rockets or make any attempt to locate survivors or lifeboats.
AND to get back to my original point, Moore testified that he saw NO rockets that night. No light of any kind actually, then asserted the presence of a suicidal schooner and a black funneled tramp steamer seen at night and identified by their lights.
So I would understand that in the morning when you discovered Titanic had foundered, you'd be inclined to lie, but why would you admit to seeing rockets at all? Seems to me that you'd much more inclined to say "I saw nothing."
Also the behaviour of Californian in the morning wasn't that of the guilty. They were authentically surprised and took great risk loosing through ice at full speed to get to Titanics reported position. Seems to me if they were that close to the sinking Titanic they would have known exactly what happened, or if not figured it out pretty quick, and would not have put their ship at great risk to get to the SOS position.
Incidentally (I do not mean to sound like a broken record or to suggest I am positive Mount Temple was the guilty party) the only ship whose behavior was odd in the morning was Mount Temple. First she reported Titanic sunk early in the morning when everyone, including Carpathia was still operating on the assumption Titanic was still floating but not transmitting. Second she stopped dead and watched other ships during the first part of the day go the wrong direction through the ice (since Moore says he was at the SOS position and knew there was no ship or wreckage there) without correcting then or transmitting at all. Third, Mount Temple did not fire rockets or make any attempt to locate survivors or lifeboats.
AND to get back to my original point, Moore testified that he saw NO rockets that night. No light of any kind actually, then asserted the presence of a suicidal schooner and a black funneled tramp steamer seen at night and identified by their lights.
Similar threads
