It's going to be disputed

Mar 22, 2003
5,353
737
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Actually Senan, I was responding to Ryan's statement where he said: "Mr. Molony (IMO) has proved Captain Lord not guilty." My point was that I do not believe he was guilty of anything based on what he saw that night, what he was told that night, or what he did that night as a result. That is the one point that I believe you and I do agree on.

I also said I don’t think anybody has proved anything conclusively, especially if it is based mostly on subjective and conflicting eyewitness accounts such as estimated distances or times.

Short enough?
 
Aug 15, 2005
908
1
86
33
Darwen, United Kingdom
I'd be lying if I told you I've read all of that Samuel - however, I do believe I caught the gist of it.
Obviously a few white rockets are nothing to be alarmed over - something to spark one's curiosity, maybe, but nothing that would signal that a major disaster was in the happening o'er/on the horizon.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,353
737
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Not a few Ryan. If it were a few that were reported to him, then that certainly should have been alarming. I believe, however, Lord was told by Stone at the time about one white rocket being seen after first seeing what he thought was a shooting star. And that from a ship that stopped about an hour earlier. (You may want to read the signed affidavit of Gibson of April 18, 1912.)
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,587
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Nobody's going to read a post that long, Sam. Certainly not me.<<

Why not? I did...and it looked pretty balanced and fair to me. Some of it could even be said to be sympathetic to the "Pro-Lord" side of the issue. At the very least, it shows that Samuel is willing to give all interested parties a fair hearing.
 

Noel F. Jones

Active Member
May 14, 2002
857
0
0
“Nobody's going to read a post that long, Sam. Certainly not me.”￾

What the bloody hell’s that supposed to mean?

For the record I managed to digest it myself on the scroll-down and with ease before arriving at this peculiar response which certainly tells us more about the responder than about that which is being responded to.

Noel
 

Steve Olguin

Member
Mar 31, 2005
347
0
86
>>Nobody's going to read a post that long, Sam. Certainly not me.<<<

I don't know how old you are, but IMO you need to start acting like an adult. Quit acting as if you are superior to everyone on this board because you are not. One thread was already closed down because you couldn't act like an adult and as a member here, I really hate reading this crap. I'm not a moderator or staff here, but as a member here, I do believe I am entitled to my own opinion on the matter.

If you can't state your argument in a mature way, then IMHO you shouldn't argue it at all. You are not the absolute truth, so would you please stop acting as if you are.

Heaven forbid any of us come up to another conclusion other than yours, I have my own thoughts on the subject but I guess I am just a stupid idiot and I don't know what the heck I am talking about because I haven't published a research article.

Good Day.
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Nov 30, 2000
1,244
2
168
56
West Sussex, UK
I, for one, do not wish to see a continuation of the previous unpleasantness and the closure of yet another thread relating to Captain Lord and the Californian. This topic always seems to generate acrimony and a failure of perspective in the minds of most (but not all) of the participants. Therefore, if I should see a post from anybody that isn't both on-topic and free from personal invective - subtle or otherwise - from this point forward, I will remove it.

I am not messing about here.
 
P

patrick toms

Guest
lord of the californian did everything correctly so it was hard to see what he did wrong,he stopped his ship in the icefield,because it was to dangerous to go on this is commonsense,as well as good seamanship,however it was hard to pinpoint mistakes by captain smith and his officers because his officers,the white star line and himself did practically eveyrthing wrong!
pat toms president shannon ulster titanic society
 

Matthew Farr

Member
Apr 14, 2010
274
0
46
37
Lansing, Michigan, United States
>>Lord of the Californian did everything correctly<<

As far as seamanship goes I believe that Lord made the right decision to stop his ship that night. He had the sense to know that trying to navigate through that ice was inviting disaster. I would not go so far as to say he did everything right. When his officers reported seeing rockets he should have at least woken Cyril Evans to try and find out what they meant instead of assuming they were company signals. He may or may not have been able to reach the Titanic in time to help but he could have made the attempt if he had known.

>>Captain Smith, etc... did practically everything wrong<<

Yes they did make mistakes but not everything they did was wrong. As I was reminded of in another thread you cannot look at it in todays standards. Many of the things we would consider wrong today were perfectly acceptable back then. An example would be steaming through an ice field at full sped at night. This was a common practice in 1912. Captain Lord was the one that made the unusual choice to stop his ship.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,587
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>When his officers reported seeing rockets he should have at least woken Cyril Evans to try and find out what they meant instead of assuming they were company signals. <<

Easy enough to say in hindsight and if I recall correctly, that very question was posed at the inquiries. The problem here is that the utility of radio was not all that widely understood or appriciated among one and all. I don't think it even occured to him to give the wireless operator a shake.

>>Yes they did make mistakes but not everything they did was wrong.<<

Wrong enough. They lost the ship.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Not going to argue with anyone over this but how can anyone put all the blaim on just one person and above all try to blaim the Californian when she had no effect on the Titanic sinking. I fully agree with Michael about the fact that the Californian was an old ship and wouldnt have gotten up to top speed as quickly due to age and I also agree with the marine growth on the hull. That would be a good way to slow a ship down.

Also I can see the officers on the bridge of the Californian not thinking about waking the wireless operator. In 1912 the wireless operator wasnt really aboard the ships for the crew, they were basicly there for the passengers. Now I might be wrong on this but I think Californian was a cargo vessle I might be wrong. But besides that wireless was still very new and optional at the time. Many ships were using rockets for communication with other ships that didnt have wireless systems aboard. But in all honesty I would think that the officer on deck would have gotten suspicious of seeing 7 or 8 rockets going up at very close intervals.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,587
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Not going to argue with anyone over this but how can anyone put all the blaim on just one person...<<

I don't think you'll find anyone who is reasonably well informed enough on the disaster who is going to put the blame on one person. As with any disaster short of so-called "Acts Of God" you'll find a long string of errors and bogus assumptions which all come together to make for one supremely bad day.

For those who are not that well informed, it's just easier to look for that one Magic Bullet of a cause which explains it all. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who just can't comprehend how something as simple as pure human fallibility can cause so much carnage.

>>and above all try to blaim the Californian when she had no effect on the Titanic sinking.<<


I would attribute that to some measure of laziness as well. Californian's accountability lies in the fact that the watch team and in particular, Captain Lord failed to respond as proactively as they could have.

Ultimately, it made no real difference for Titanic. She had about two hours and forty minutes to live after contact with the berg, and that's all on Captain Smith and Company. Californian had no influance over that. Further, the roughly hour and a half they had from the time the first socket signals were seen is scarcely adaquate time to mount the sort of "Cavalry Charging To The Rescue" operation that some may think.

Arguably however, they should have tried. If nothing else, the effort would have spared Captain Lord a lot of grief regardless of how futile it may have been.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
True, Lord not making an attempt at making it to the the site of the sinking did damage his image and made him the one out to be the reason for so many deaths but I just cant see how you can blaim the Californian or Lord for that. It wasnt the Californian or Lords fault that Alexander Carisle was overuled on the number of boats he wanted to put on the Olympic class ships that would have been well over enough to save everyone. But I agree that its no one persons fault. Its a combination of actions that led up to the disaster. I mean look at Thomas Andrews, he predicted the Titanic would sink in an hour maybe two and that would have put the Titanic sinking at 12:40am to 1:40 am but she lasted till 2:20am. So I do have to give credit to the builders that Titanic was built better than Andrews thought.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,353
737
273
Chicago, IL, USA
So I do have to give credit to the builders that Titanic was built better than Andrews thought.
Matt, I don't think the ship was built better than what Andrews thought. From what Andrews had seen of the flooding his best estimate, or should I say guess, was an hour to an hour and half. I'm sure he didn't attempt to do a complete analysis. No time for that. My guess is that the ship lasted as long as it did because of the actions of C/E Bell and his staff down below in how they applied the pumps to control the flooding, including keeping the ship on a more or less even keel for most of the time she had left.
 
May 1, 2004
294
0
86
Of course the Californian cannot be blamed for the Titanic's sinking; but she did have an obligation to find out what was going on with a ship that was firing white rockets. I've read that the Californian signalled to the ship she saw using a Morse lamp - no reply. But the Californian did have wireless. The big steamer she saw was big enough to be assumed to have wireless and wireless use was for the captain to communicate with other ships, and via shore stations, with his steamship company; though the passengers' messages provided ample income for the Marconi Company.
I suppose that Captain Lord was (or believed he was) under no obligation to disturb the wireless man when the man was off-duty.
 
May 1, 2004
294
0
86
Thank you, Sam.
Reading it, I think Captain Lord was hedging at the inquiry. He said that the steamer he saw was as big as his own. His steamer had wireless. Why did he assume the other steamer did not? His 'responsible officer on the bridge' could have had the wireless operator woken and ordered him to find out for him.
Captain Lord 'was still thinking of the company's signal'. Distress rockets did not enter his head at all. Yet he knew that white rockets fired the way his officers reported to him they were fired meant 'Distress'. Maybe, half-asleep after a hard day, he forgot (or wanted to forget) that little bit of data. "It's been a B---r of a day. My ship's surrounded by ice. We told everyone that. We did our duty. It's freezing cold. Why bother to get 'Sparks' up just to hear that some zillionaire's having a party out there?" I don't think the captain was callous. When he did find out the Titanic went down, he offered his help. But he did not do all he could at the time his officers reported the rockets.


Marilyn
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,587
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>His steamer had wireless. Why did he assume the other steamer did not?<<

Probably because a lot of ships at the time didn't. While radio was spreading, it wasn't everywhere and it would be awhile before it was. Lord may have been hedging, but his perported skepticism was not entirely unreasonable.
 

Matthew Farr

Member
Apr 14, 2010
274
0
46
37
Lansing, Michigan, United States
I have come to the conclusion that the only thing that would really have changed if Captain Lord had done what history says he should have (i.e find out what the rockets meant and gone to the rescue). A hundred or so more people might have been saved (probably not) and Captain Lord and the Californian's Crew would be the heros of the night instead of Captain Lord and the Carpathia's Crew. Perhaps the changes to the regulations regarding 24 hour wireless operation may not have happened either but I think they would have changed anyway based on the loss of life. Oh, and we would not be having this discussion either.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
I think you mean Captain Rostron of the Carpathia not Captain Lord. But besides that, Like Michael stated, even if the Californian got there if she left when she first saw the rockets she probably wouldnt have made it there while the Titanic was still afloat. She could have encountered an iceberg like the Carpathia did and would have to stop for a while to get around it,ect Its all a what if thing and Californian would have just got there as Titanic was breaking up in the best situation but in the most likely situation she would have gotten there long after Titanic sunk.