David Billnitzer
Member
I recently was provided a copy of the book "A Ship Accused" with the understanding that I would provide my thoughts on it. Personally I didn't want to spend money on it, suspecting that the book's contents and arguments would be familiar to those who have followed the online discussions about the Californian over the past several years, and that I would not find anything in the way of new primary material in it, just a rehash of predictable pro-Lord interpretations, based on minute selections from the evidence.
Reading the book did nothing to dispel my initial hesitation. Most of the same pro-Lord arguments (a 12 minute time difference, the Titanic's post collision heading, the Californian's overnight position, and so on), and their flaws, are trotted out yet again. Finally the book seems to lean towards a four-ship theory, more akin to Foweraker's 1912-13 work than to Eno's recent suggestions, for those who are familiar with those pro-Lord attempts.
But the end result is that it's all been done before, and contains the same problems that Foweraker encountered, and Padfield after him, and without an attempt to solve them. A four ship theory collapses quickly if it can't explain how Stone's mystery ship (which was certainly not the Titanic!) suddenly changed her bearings and took those pesky rockets right along with her. Stone had no answer for that at the British Inquiry, Foweraker and Padfield had no answer for it in their theories, and neither does this book. Also, no explanation is attempted at how Stone's mystery ship was able to steam off SW in the dead of night, into the icefield - an attempt which neither the Californian nor the Titanic completed.
There are other flawed uses of the testimony, particularly an exchange between the Virginian and the Californian just as Capt Lord began to move his ship for the morning, and Capt Moore's sighting of the Californian north of the Carpathia at daylight. There is an almost comical attempt to suggest that the Californian *might have* had more speaking tubes from the bridge to below decks, but this section is so ridiculous and contrived, that I won't take any more time on it here. Certainly nothing worth $35.
There's a curious statement early in the book that since Californian was to the north, she would always show her green light, regardless of which way the Titanic herself was heading; this statement is just plain incorrect.
The book also reprints the "Rockets!" article that was already published here on ET.
As I said above, there was nothing new in this book in the way of primary documentation, and much that has already been said before. Those who witnessed or took part in the many discussions about the Californian with the book's author will recognize instantly the same material, his use of it, and his same arguments.
For those who wish to learn more, a better choice for understanding the Californian's involvement in the Titanic disaster is Walter Lord's second book, The Night Lives On, in the chapter "A Certain Amount of Slackness." Walter Lord presents the case factually and as fully as anybody needs to understand it, without having to dive into the testimony and all its contradictory data.
If one does read this book, or Padfield, Harrison, Foweraker among the pro-Lord crowd, or Leslie Reade, Geoffrey Marcus or others among the anti-Lord crowd, hoping for a deeper understanding of the Californian issue, do yourself a favor. Be sure to keep a copy of the US and BR inquiries close at hand, and at the very least, compare the authors' interpretations with the raw data. It's the only way.
Personally, I am back where I started; there are better uses for my money than recycled material such as this.
Dave Billnitzer
Reading the book did nothing to dispel my initial hesitation. Most of the same pro-Lord arguments (a 12 minute time difference, the Titanic's post collision heading, the Californian's overnight position, and so on), and their flaws, are trotted out yet again. Finally the book seems to lean towards a four-ship theory, more akin to Foweraker's 1912-13 work than to Eno's recent suggestions, for those who are familiar with those pro-Lord attempts.
But the end result is that it's all been done before, and contains the same problems that Foweraker encountered, and Padfield after him, and without an attempt to solve them. A four ship theory collapses quickly if it can't explain how Stone's mystery ship (which was certainly not the Titanic!) suddenly changed her bearings and took those pesky rockets right along with her. Stone had no answer for that at the British Inquiry, Foweraker and Padfield had no answer for it in their theories, and neither does this book. Also, no explanation is attempted at how Stone's mystery ship was able to steam off SW in the dead of night, into the icefield - an attempt which neither the Californian nor the Titanic completed.
There are other flawed uses of the testimony, particularly an exchange between the Virginian and the Californian just as Capt Lord began to move his ship for the morning, and Capt Moore's sighting of the Californian north of the Carpathia at daylight. There is an almost comical attempt to suggest that the Californian *might have* had more speaking tubes from the bridge to below decks, but this section is so ridiculous and contrived, that I won't take any more time on it here. Certainly nothing worth $35.
There's a curious statement early in the book that since Californian was to the north, she would always show her green light, regardless of which way the Titanic herself was heading; this statement is just plain incorrect.
The book also reprints the "Rockets!" article that was already published here on ET.
As I said above, there was nothing new in this book in the way of primary documentation, and much that has already been said before. Those who witnessed or took part in the many discussions about the Californian with the book's author will recognize instantly the same material, his use of it, and his same arguments.
For those who wish to learn more, a better choice for understanding the Californian's involvement in the Titanic disaster is Walter Lord's second book, The Night Lives On, in the chapter "A Certain Amount of Slackness." Walter Lord presents the case factually and as fully as anybody needs to understand it, without having to dive into the testimony and all its contradictory data.
If one does read this book, or Padfield, Harrison, Foweraker among the pro-Lord crowd, or Leslie Reade, Geoffrey Marcus or others among the anti-Lord crowd, hoping for a deeper understanding of the Californian issue, do yourself a favor. Be sure to keep a copy of the US and BR inquiries close at hand, and at the very least, compare the authors' interpretations with the raw data. It's the only way.
Personally, I am back where I started; there are better uses for my money than recycled material such as this.
Dave Billnitzer
