James Leen's question.


Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,788
971
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
In another thread which was rightly judged to be nothing to do with the SS Californian, member James Leen , presented his case and opinion regardi ng the navigation of the SS Californian. Consiquently, the thread was closed on the groumds of Jim's post being inappropriate. He was not re directed. Consquently, I reproduce it here.

" I 've been going through the inquiries again and I think there's an overwhelming bias against Cap'n Lord. Now, leaving aside the old chestnuts of he should have done this, that and the other, the bias shown against Lord consciously didmisses his skill as both a sailor and a navigator. This reputational battering even extended so far that a rookie, an apprentice's testimony was given far greater credence than the Master's evidence.

As to the relative positions of the ships: I fully accept where Lord places the Californian. After all, it is a matter of record that Lord's estimate for the wreck site was rather close:

7039. I should like to understand from you, if you say that the position indicated to you was wrong, what do you say was the position?
- The position where I left the wreckage was 41º 33' N., 50° 1' W.

So "...I am satisfied that this position is not accurate." Well given how close Lord got the debris field is it too overwhelming to assume that he would be on the money with his estimate of where the Californian had been during the night to remember?

Perhaps some of the navigational experts would care to posit some thoughts? (And I hope so!).

Regards

Jim
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,788
971
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I totally agree with you Jim. You will doubtless be referred to articles written on the subject. Most of these have been extremely well presented.
As with the conclusions of the Titanic Inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic, all conclusions have been developed on the concept of pre- determination supported by unfounded evidence. Some have even completely ignored or twisted contrary evidence to make their conclusion fit. All have missed one very important bit of independent technical information.
That is all I have to say on the matter.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Similar threads

Similar threads