It's going to be disputed


Status
Not open for further replies.
But I think a new scapegoat is needed.

Mr. Molony (IMO) has proved Captain Lord not guilty, even though many, including myself, had always thought that he was the man to blame for such loss of life (Let's face it - it was Bride's fault that the Californian switched off [no disrespect to the man]).

But it seems apparent that many of us would like someone to blame. Ideas please.

Who to blame now?
Mount Temple?
The seal boat that was illegally hunting in the area at the time (with no wireless)?

Discuss...
 
>>Mr. Molony (IMO) has proved Captain Lord not guilty<<

An entirely debatable point which I have no interest in taking up. Instead of relying on one article or website, pro or con, go to the inquiries, read all the evidence and decide based on what the primary sources actually say.

>>Let's face it - it was Bride's fault that the Californian switched off [no disrespect to the man]). <<

Oh really? Absent Bride's involvement, Californian would have switched off anyway. Like a lot of ships, they had only one operator. After a long shift, the man had to get some sleep sometime. The Carpathia's operator was likewise literally moments away from doing just that himself when he heard the Titanic's distress call.

>>Who to blame now? <<

In general terms, how about excruciatingly bad navigation practice leading to a close encounter with a solid object that was going nowhere no matter how hard it was shoved? That's been known to ruin more then one day, and not just with Titanic.

>>The seal boat that was illegally hunting in the area at the time (with no wireless)? <<

There was no sealer hunting *illegally* in the area as there was nothing illegal about hunting seals in international waters at the time. The Samson saga is one of those tales that doesn't survive close scrutiny. Even Leslie Harrison...who no friend of Captain Lord's critics and keen to find exculpatory evidence for his client (That was his job!)...dismissed that one, and that should tell you something!
 
You fight a good fight, Michael.
I am already bruised excessively.

As for the illegal thing... I read that in a book (I cannot remember which), and it said that there was a vessel nearby that COULD see Titanic's distress signals, but never came forward for the enquiries due to illegal seal hunting activities...

Now that you mention it - me smells Gardiner or Pellegrino (two likely candidates).

Still... Who was that ship near/on the horizon?
There must have been something - too many people saw it for it to have been an oceanic mirage.
 
>>As for the illegal thing... I read that in a book (I cannot remember which), <<

I recall reading something to the effect in A Night To Remember, which in any event is not a primary source.

>>Still... Who was that ship near/on the horizon?<<

Historical consensus...obviously not universal...is that it was the Californian.

>>There must have been something - too many people saw it for it to have been an oceanic mirage.<<

Nobody argued that it was either. The identity...yes...the presence of said vessel...no.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
(Let's face it - it was Bride's fault that the Californian switched off [no disrespect to the man]).

You're thinking of Jack Phillips who was working Cape Race, when Cyril Evans rudely interrupted him at approximately 10:55 pm with the message, "I say old man, we are stopped and surrounded by ice".

Still though, Phillips is not the man to blame for Evans choosing to shut down his radio for the night, for the reasons Michael has already stated.
 
Well... like I said in the above post...

So 'twas Bride who survived? Or Am I grossly misinformed (or grossly inebriated)?
With the books I've read, you wouldn't blame me for getting confused (or with what I've drunk tonight, for that matter).
They all give a different story. I don't know which to follow these days.
Please re-direct me correctly.
 
Before I forget, Michael...

"I recall reading something to the effect in A Night To Remember, which in any event is not a primary source."

I've never read ANTR, though I would like to.
Thanks.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
So 'twas Bride who survived?

Yes, Harold Bride survived.

They all give a different story. I don't know which to follow these days.

Well, no book is without some errors in it. If you wish to find out which Titanic books are the best, have a look in the "Titanic Books" topic, where you will find the answers.
 
Ryan, you might start with my own e-book, Titanic: Monument and Warning. I assure you it's very complete and it covers a huge amount of ground.

Concerning Captain Lord, I'll only say that I have a huge amount of circumstantial evidence against him, including things others have missed. There is so much material that points to a man with a guilty secret.

For all that, the key questions are ultimately unanswerable. Was Lord adequately informed of Titanic's signals? If he was, did he knowingly fail to act on them? In the end, it's one man's word against another and a jury might not convict.
 
Let me start off by clarifying for everyone who I DON'T blame:
I don't blame the quality of the ship in any form or the thousands of men who worked on her. I think for that time & the knowledge that they had - that they put all their best into building Titanic.
I don't blame the wireless operators either because as it was posted earlier: they had to sleep sometime.
I don't blame the Captain, because again for that time period I think he made all the best choices he could have.
I do have mixed feeling about Ismay: I don't blame him for getting in a lifeboat and fighting to live - but I do believe he verbally pushed the Captain into going faster than he should have given the ice. And yes, even though he is the Captain & ultimately had the final say - ( I work in a factory ) and when the money holder wants something done you do it or lose the money to keep your business running. Remember, they didn't have the hindsight that we now do with knowing of the loss of life. So for that pressure, I partly blame Ismay.
I partly blame Captain Lord too: We will never know for sure if his ship was the one everyone spotted . . . but I read in a book ( don't remember which one) how 2 of the crew on the californian seen the "strange" ship with the rockets & the strange tilt to it on the horizon - they kept going to the captain while he was trying to sleep "Sir we see . . . . blah, blah, blah" and the captain saying go back and see if this or see if that . . . .then finally they no longer seen the ship & figured she sailed away. Would it be too much trouble for the captain to get off his butt and investigate it at the first report? Have faith in your men that if they felt the need to tell you about it - that it warrents a look at least - in case it was trouble. Yes, it was BIG trouble because I do believe it was them next to Titanic.
So I really don't have a new scapegoat. It's the same ones they blamed in 1912 - because there is truth & merit to their reasons on why they believe as they do. I think it still stands today.
 
>>but I do believe he verbally pushed the Captain into going faster than he should have given the ice.<<

And where is the direct evidence that he did anything of the kind? The one piece we have on an overheard conversation is, strictly speaking, hearsay. Despite that, the whole thing has taken on a life of it's own. Without Ismay, Titanic still would have gone ahead and increased speed. That was simply how things were done.

>>I partly blame Captain Lord too:<<

For what? if...as his critics say...the Californian was around 10 to 12 miles away, he would probably have arrived in time to watch the ship sink. It's doubtful that his people could have saved more then a couple of hundred if any at all and at that, only if everything went according to the best plan possible. A questionable prospect as even the best laid plans seldom survive first contact with reality.

If he was 20 miles away as his champions assert, then the question of whether or not he could have arrived in time to fish even the toughest souls out of the water doesn't even bear discussion.

Remember that the Californian was at best capable of 13 knots all out when brand new and under trial conditions. She was *not* new in 1912 and had a full cargo so it would have taken time to get up to speed. That's fast enough to get on scene in a bit over an hour at one proposed distance and two or more if you accept the 20 mile figure. This also assumes that she had a clean bottom unencumbered by marine growth like barnacles. (Does anyone out there know when Californian had last been drydocked up to that time?)

To make myself clear, I'm not saying it shouldn't have been tried, but realistically, the question of whether he could have accomplished much of anything is questionable at best. That's one of the reasons I tend to think of the whole Californian mess as a gigantic red herring.

That "noble effort" would have been nice, and might have made a difference for some swimmers had she been as close as Lord's critics assert, but it had nothing to do with how and why Titanic came into contact with the iceberg in the first place.
 
There is more than enough blame to go round. What isn't realised that much of it rests with men most Titanic fans have never heard of, notably, Sydney Buxton, Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith, Sir Walter Howell and Sir Alfred Chalmers. There is more to this than a simple tale of mariners who got things wrong. The Titanic disaster was made possible by a combination of attitudes and ideology on land and sea.
 
>>Concerning Captain Lord, I'll only say that I have a huge amount of circumstantial evidence against him, including things others have missed. There is so much material that points to a man with a guilty secret.<<

Concerning Dave Gittins website, I will say that I have seen numerous mistakes thereon.

I challenge Dave Gittins to state publicly whether he believes the Californian was the Titanic's Mystery Ship.

And can he supply a single reason why she must be so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top