Californian Crew

Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
I suggest people read the 1992 MAIB "Reappraisal of Evidence Relating to SS Californian." It gives an entirely different perspective into this affair. And before you accept the conclusions of others, including those participating in these discussions, read the collective evidence from both inquiries yourself. The one overwhelming reality is that rockets were seen from Californian's bridge that night no matter how far away the two ships may have been.
 
H

Harland Duzen

Member
I have read these both multiple times and do I agree they saw Titanic's rockets in the distance. I believe however that by a 1 in a million chance, they saw the lights from another ship sailing in front of the rockets which created confusion over whether the ship was in distress or not.

As stated in post 56 on page 3, with the scapegoating Mersey, the damage control by Lord going wrong, the scarred officers and crew, the unconfirmed position and routes of ships in that area and multiple other
events, we never truly know what happened that night.

I aways wondered if someone traced the family trees of the members of the Californian that new evidence might be found via letters to relatives or loved one.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The Californian was featured on ITN news back in 1992. Captain Lord's son gave a few words, as well as survivor Eva Hart, and author Monica O'Hara.




.
 
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
The Inquiry was not satisfied with Captain Lord's answers because he repeatedly denied things his crew said occurred:


This is about the crew, Aaron. But since you have taken the trouble to post the above, I will answer you in chronological order.

"The Inquiry was not satisfied with Captain Lord's answers ".

The Purpose of that Inquiry was to find out why Titanic sank. Initially, Lord Mersey was charge with getting the answers to 26 questions set by the UK Board of Trade. Not one of these questions concerned the SS Californian.
When someone is questioned about a disaster...a post The Inquiry was not satisfied with Captain Lord's answers if you like...it is presumed that the questioner is seeking an answer to what happened. To like or dislike and answer was totally out of order, it suggests that the questioner will only accept one answer. Neither Captain Lord or his crew were on trial for anything.

When Captain Lord was questioned about his conversation with Groves concerning the nearby streamer, that was on Day 7. Groves was not on the stand until the following morning, Day 8. Lord knew for certain that the only steamer stransmitting wireless messages in the vicinity of Californian was Titanic. His wireless operator told him so at 11 pm.. long before Groves was involved at all.

Survivors did not see the stern swinging away to the south. They allegedly saw the iceberg on the starboard quarter some time after the impact and when the ship was almost stopped in the water.
If QM Olliver heard the second helm order then he was not near enough to the bridge to hear the first one. it would have been given from the open bridge wing.
AB Scarrott's evidence does not make any practical sense, given the time scale.
QM Rowe said it passed so close to the stern that it almost touched the docking bridge.
Major Peuchen.. the expert yachtsman...didn't know port from starboard. He was in a port side boat that rowed directly out from the side. How on earth could he have seen The Northern Lights unless Titanic was heading west when she sank?
If Lawrence Beesley saw the Northern Lights on the starboard bow of his lifeboat, then that lifeboat was heading west. Because the Northern lights are over the Magnetic Pole and at that time the MP was north west of Titanic.

Gill talked rubbish. There is no way you can determine the nationality of a ship at night.
Groves watched a ship approaching Californian on a course of about NNE. He watched it far half an hour... first saw it 12 miles away then it stooped 6 miles a way. That ship was making 12 knots, not 22.5 knots. Titanic did not approach the ship seen ahead of her...it approached her.
The men on Titanic's bridge took regular bearings of the nearby ship. That was and still is standard practice. Although now you would use radar. Had that been Titanic, the bearings would not have changed...they did.
Just before Titanic sank, she took a heavy port list. at that time, her red port light would have been LOWER, not higher as observed by Stone and Gibson.
If the rockets seen right on the horizon to the south at about 3-30 am were indeed fired by Carpathia, then that is absolute proof that Californian was where Captain Lord said she was. Because at that time, Carpathia was near as damnit 8 miles south east of Boxhall in boat No.2. These were standard distress rockets. had Californian been nearer to Boxhall than 21 miles these rockets would have been clear, above the horizon. If Californian had been , as some suggest, less than 10 miles from Titanic when she sank, then not only would these rockets have been way up in the air, but Boxhall's green flares would have been part of the evidence of Stone and Gibson.

Carpathia found the survivors just after 4 am Californian did not move until 5 am and did not start crossing the pack ice until after that.
The evidence of Captain Moore of the Mount Temple places his ship almost equidistant between Carpathia and Californian at 6-30 am, more than an hour after Californian started up her engines. That evidence has no bearing on where all three ships were just after 4 am that morning. We know for sure that they were all stopped at that time.

The pyrotechnic signals seen from Californian by Stone and Gibson did not burst above the steaming light of the nearby vessel. That vessel could not have been Titanic since her socket signals rose to more than 500 feet above the sea... way above her single, not twin, steaming lights. Keep in mind, the vessel seen by Groves had two steaming lights and Titanic had one.

Refraction will take place if the conditions for it exist BETWEEN to points. There was clear water between Titanic and Californian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
I suggest people read the 1992 MAIB "Reappraisal of Evidence Relating to SS Californian." It gives an entirely different perspective into this affair. And before you accept the conclusions of others, including those participating in these discussions, read the collective evidence from both inquiries yourself. The one overwhelming reality is that rockets were seen from Californian's bridge that night no matter how far away the two ships may have been.

The facts that Stone and Gibson saw white pyrotechnics in the direction of the nearby vessel and that these were form the sinking Titanic are not, and should not be, in question.
The MAIB of the MCA reprt is 'flexible' as might be expected by a politically motivated action. Indeed the polite statement "I do not fully agree with all the Inspector’s findings" by the MAIB Chief Inspector Captain Marriot says volumes. However it was not complete. Although the Inspector concluded "CALIFORNIAN was between 17 and 20 miles from TITANIC at the time of collision, bearing about NW by N from her.", he did not consider the pyrotechnics seen by Mr Stone and Apprentice Gibson half an hour before the end of Midnight to 4 am Watch. Had he done so, he would most certainly have concluded that Captain Lord's DR stopped position was correct.
By the way, I suggest you all take a close look at the Annex Chart of prevailing winds and currents in the area of 42 North, 47 West. There you will see what combinations of current and prevailing winds would have on the movement of ships, bergs and surface ice.
 
Dr. Ajmal Dar

Dr. Ajmal Dar

Member
Kay,
Hi, to be fair to Lord, he was not in bed but fully clothed and lying on the settee in the chart room. He did go to his room to answer the call from Stone which was made by tge speaking tube. I think the portrayal of Lord as being asleep in the film ANTR was unfair.
All the best,
Ajmal
 
M

Mila

Senior Member
Hello Martin. I'll work in reverse.

However, even then, it was known that The Labrador Current flowed down the east side of The Grand Bank then turned westward at the tail of the bank before turning southward once again, down the eastern seaboard of the US. It was also know in those days that ice move by current and wind. Bergs by wind and current but pack ice mainly by the surface wind. Even that intelligence was completely ignored and is still ignored by some. The story of the south setting current is an assumption based on incomplete examination of all the available evidence from all vessels in the area.
Hi Jim do you have any evidence of the wind speed and direction that explains how it moved the sea ice in April of 1912?
 
K

Kiku

Member
Erm, I would say u are wrong there about Mr Stone. STONE WAS A COMPETENT OFFICER. I would hardly believe that a senior officer with 8 years experience at sea and an intelligent mind such as Stone possessed would be intimidated by Captain Lord. STONE did relay the information to Lord and did everything a competent senior officer should of done.Stone sent Gibson down to Lord because he, been the senior officer was better placed to remain on the bridge and send the apprentice on the errands. Why does Stone get the blame? Stone did nothing wrong. Captain Lord was the person to blame. Instead of lying comfortable in bed he should have taken Stones messages on board and got his lazy backside up, headed for the bridge and looked for himself.
Captain Lord was never in bed...he was lying on the chartroom settee fully dressed.
 
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
Captain Lord was never in bed...he was lying on the chartroom settee fully dressed.
You are correct, however, in case you may not have realized it, you are responding to a post from Feb 2017.
 
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
Captain Lord was never in bed...he was lying on the chartroom settee fully dressed.
I think that fact has now been generally accepted. However, many people have the image of Captain Lord (played by Russell Napier) in bed in his pyjamas (and seemingly irritated at being disturbed by his crew) imprinted in their minds - as shown in the 1958 film A Night To Remember. Yes, that film had the right ethos as oppsed to Cameron's 1997 film but that's about it. ANTR also had too many factual errors many of which were unnecessary, lopsided crew characterisation and even for 1958 bargain basement special effects.
 
K

Kiku

Member
I think that fact has now been generally accepted. However, many people have the image of Captain Lord (played by Russell Napier) in bed in his pyjamas (and seemingly irritated at being disturbed by his crew) imprinted in their minds - as shown in the 1958 film A Night To Remember. Yes, that film had the right ethos as oppsed to Cameron's 1997 film but that's about it. ANTR also had too many factual errors many of which were unnecessary, lopsided crew characterisation and even for 1958 bargain basement special effects.
I wonder why Charles Lightoller had minimal screen time in the 1997 film...apparently he was the hero in ANTR. Though he was responsible for the lives of those in the upturned collapsible and did a good job of it, it hardly finds any mention in the 1997 film.
 
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
I wonder why Charles Lightoller had minimal screen time in the 1997 film...apparently he was the hero in ANTR. Though he was responsible for the lives of those in the upturned collapsible and did a good job of it, it hardly finds any mention in the 1997 film.
IMO Charles Lightoler was no more a hero than Lowe and several other surviving crew members and certainly not anywhere near Murdoch, Moody, Nichols and probably McElroy. Yes, he took charge of the overturned Collapsible B and kept a modicum of control, but as the surviving senior officer it would have been his duty to do so. Lightoller would have known that the others on board would look up to him to keep things organized and in control, which he did to a large extent. But it was not as though he bodily pulled several people out of the water onto the makeshift raft; most either clambered on board themselves or were helped by Lightoller and the others already on board. So, one cannot claim that those others who survived on board the overturned Collapsible B owed their lives to Lightoller.

His character was depicted as the "hero" in the 1958 film because movies were - and to a large extent still are - central character orientated. While that is necessary for certain types of fictional stories, IMO filmmakers do not seem to believe that audience have the intelligence to appreciate a completely plot orientated film with no central character. Two absolutely brilliant films of that genre - both my favourites - are United 93 (2006) and Eye In The Sky (2015). Then there is the Norwegian film Utoya: July 22 directed by Eric Poppe; also superb. It takes skill and courage to make a film with a semi-documentary approach without a traditional 'hero' or 'heroine' but IMO a film about the Titanic disaster needs such an approach.
 
Last edited:
Top